A daily-wage employee completing 240 days is entitled to regular pay scale under a binding settlement.

The plaintiff was engaged as a daily-wage Helper with Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Depot.

He claimed that his initial appointment was on 01.03.1988, whereas the respondent-department asserted that he had joined only on 04.07.1988.

His services were terminated on 19.02.1989.

The Labour Court, by award dated 28.07.1993, directed his reinstatement with continuity of service and awarded back wages from 04.09.1990; he rejoined on 05.11.1993.

The plaintiff alleged that the department had wrongly calculated his arrears as a daily-wage employee and denied him the regular pay scale applicable to Helpers.

Relying on the settlement dated 22.01.1967, he claimed that completion of 240 days’ service entitled him to the regular pay scale and allowances on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The trial Court dismissed his suit for declaration on 13.03.2000, and the First Appellate Court dismissed his appeal on 05.03.2002.

He thereafter filed the present Regular Second Appeal.

Whether the plaintiff’s date of appointment was 01.03.1988 and, consequently, whether he had completed more than 240 days of service before his termination on 19.02.1989?

Whether, in view of the settlement dated 22.01.1967 and the Labour Court’s award granting reinstatement with continuity of service, the plaintiff was entitled to the regular pay scale applicable to the post of Helper?

Whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiff’s suit were sustainable in law?

The Court applied the terms of the settlement dated 22.01.1967, under which a daily-wage employee completing 240 days of service was entitled to placement in the regular pay scale applicable to the post.

It further applied the evidentiary principle that an admission by a party’s own witness is relevant and may shift the evidentiary burden, and that failure to produce the best evidence—particularly records within a party’s exclusive custody—may justify an adverse inference against that party.

The Court also gave effect to the Labour Court’s award granting reinstatement with continuity of service, treating the continuity benefit as relevant to the plaintiff’s service entitlement.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The department’s own witness, DW-1, admitted that the plaintiff had been appointed as a daily-wage Helper on 01.03.1988.

Once this admission was made, the burden shifted to the department to establish its contrary assertion that the plaintiff had joined only on 04.07.1988.

The department failed to produce the attendance registers, muster rolls, and other service records in its possession; the Labour Court had also noted this withholding of relevant records.

The Court therefore accepted 01.03.1988 as the date of appointment and held that the plaintiff had completed more than 240 days before his termination on 19.02.1989.

Since the Labour Court had subsequently ordered reinstatement with continuity of service, and the settlement conferred regular-scale benefits upon completion of 240 days, the plaintiff was entitled to the regular pay scale of a Helper, subject to adjustment of amounts already paid.

The judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were set aside.

The plaintiff was held entitled to the regular pay scale applicable to the post of Helper under the settlement dated 22.01.1967, for the period for which he was legally entitled, after adjustment of payments already received.

The department was directed to calculate and release the consequential arrears within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The claim for interest at 24% per annum was rejected; however, the monetary benefits were directed to carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until actual payment.