The Punjab and Haryana High Court has termed the practice of forcing employees to sign undertakings to forgo their lawful dues as “inherently abusive” and constitutionally impermissible. The Bench also rapped Punjab for acting in a manner that was “unbecoming of a public employer”. The assertions came as the Bench directed a municipal council to release salary arrears with six per cent interest to an employee whose services were regularised after decades of work.“The practice of requiring the employees to provide an undertaking in order to claim their dues is inherently abusive. There is an evident imbalance of power between an employer and an employee,” Justice Harpreet Singh Brar asserted.The court added that the employer “very unambiguously” controlled an employee’s source of livelihood. As such, it was in a position of influence. “It is vital that the fair procedure established by law, preventing arbitrary abuse of power, is strictly adhered to. The practice of arm-twisting an employee into providing undertakings that are adverse to his interest to avoid greater damage lack legal sanctity or capriciously denying benefit of the services rendered by an employee is inconsistent with the constitutional guarantees,” Justice Brar asserted.The ruling came in case of a pump operator who had been serving the council since February 10, 1986. Though he did not possess the prescribed ITI diploma, the council unanimously resolved to regularise his services in 2000 in view of his long service. The resolution was initially stayed by the Deputy Commissioner, but the council reiterated its intent in 2008, assuring regularisation if the employee withdrew pending litigation. Acting on the assurance, the employee withdrew his writ petition. The council, too, withdrew its own challenge to a labour court award in the employee’s favour. But the council denied him benefits of regularisation.Justice Brar asserted that the services were eventually regularised in 2011 after an “inordinate delay of 11 years” and subject to a condition that the employee would not demand arrears or benefits of his previous service.“This court is constrained to observe that the conduct exhibited by the respondents is unbecoming of a public employer. The state and its instrumentalities, being model employers, are held up to higher standards and, therefore, bear an additional responsibility to ensure that their actions are not perceived as arbitrary or violative of the constitutional philosophy.” Justice Brar asserted.