Chandigarh, May 2 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined Haryana State Federation of Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited (CONFED) with a fine of Rs.2 lakh for denying wages to a worker for 89 months, around 30 years back. The HC bench of justice HS Brar also ordered that the federation will pay him the arrears and salary for the period between October, 1989 and July 1996, along with interest of 6% within three months. The petition was filed by Duni Chand, who was appointed as salesman in 1979. In 1983, he was posted to the Central Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd, Mandi Dabwali. Earlier this year, he approached court alleging that his salary was not paid for the period between September, 1989 and July 1996, and he was relieved without any termination order. He had sought wages for the period of 81 months. The federation had argued that denial of payment by the respondents was on the basis that the petitioner was not their employee, but that of the store. The HC found that the appointment was made by the chief executive officer, CONFED, and that his services were being governed throughout by the staff service rules of the federation. The court said that it is "shocked" to see the "distressing procedural trajectory" the petitioner was subjected to. He approached court in 1991 and in April in the same year, the court directed the respondents to release his salary within a period of three months. The order was not complied with and in 1999 he filed a contempt petition, which was disposed of in 2000, on assurance that "payment would be made as and when funds become available". Chand again approached the HC for third time in 2006 and the petition was disposed of with a direction to decide his representation. "The repeated disregard for the orders of this court, coupled with the sheer administrative apathy and scant regard for the plight of a common man, who served for nearly seven years without salary, shocks the judicial conscience," the court observed adding that court finds this "wholly unacceptable" that a state authority could treat its employee with such "indignity". It underlined that the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation, is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and derives its contents from the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39(e) and (f), and Articles 41 and 42. This right necessarily includes the protection of basic conditions of human dignity. "For individuals wholly or substantially dependent on wages or salary for their sustenance, the right to receive such wages assumes the character of a fundamental right," it said. The court asserted that no employer, least of all the state, can be permitted to deprive an employee of lawful wages on a recurring basis. "It is both shocking and inexplicable that the respondent-federation specially being a state authority itself has resorted to the practices of exploitation and 'beggar', by extracting work from the petitioner without paying him any salary," it remarked imposing a fine of Rs.2 lakh to be paid to the petitioner....