IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.4403 (M/S) of 2001 Vishnu Chandra Verma . .……… Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer Labour Court and another ……… Respondents with Writ Petition No.4404 (M/S) of 2001 Kichha Sugar Company . .……… Petitioner Versus Vishnu Chandra Verma and another ……… Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri Jagdish Singh Bisht, the learned for the petitioner-Vishnu Chandra Verma and Shri Prem Prakash Phartiyal, the learned counsel holding the brief of Shri T.A. Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent-Kichha Sugar Company. The workman as well as the employer are both aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court whereby it directed the employer to pay the difference of wages between the post of Accountant and Senior Accountant for the period 1986-87 and 1987-88. The workman has filed the writ petition contending that in view of the clear finding given by the Labour Court that he was working on the post of Senior Accountant, he should have been given the designation and pay scale on the post of Senior Accountant and that the Labour Court had committed an error in only granting the difference of wages. On the other hand, the employer has filed the writ petition assailing the award on the ground that the workman was only 2 assigned to do the work of the Senior Accountant when the Senior Accountant was transferred to another unit of the Company and, therefore, for the additional work he was not entitled to be paid the difference of wages, quite apart from the fact that he was not entitled for any designation and promotion to the post of Senior Accountant. The employer has further contended that only the factory had been impleaded whereas the actual employer was the Corporation, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation, which has not been impleaded as a necessary party and, consequently, in the absence of the Company being before the Labour Court, no award could have been passed against them. Having considered the matter upon a perusal of the record and upon reading the award, the Court finds that admittedly the workman was made to do the work on the post of Senior Accountant for almost eight months and, consequently, the Labour Court in its discretion directed the employer to pay the difference of wages. The contention of the workman that he is entitled to be given the designation and pay scale on the post of Senior Accountant is patently erroneous, in as much as, he was only promoted to the post of Senior Accountant and for a brief period, he was made to do the work of the Senior Accountant since the existing Senior Accountant was transferred. In my opinion, the employer has a right to assign the duty for a limited period in the event of the post falling vacant. By assigning such duties, it does not become an enforceable right to a workman to start claiming designation and pay scale of that post. The Labour Court, in my opinion, was liberal in granting the difference of wages. In so far as the stand of the employer is concerned, admittedly, no one was transferred or posted on the post of Senior Accountant for reasons best known. The employer should have 3 ensured the posting of a person upon the transfer of the existing incumbent at the earliest. In the absence of not posting any person and allowing an employee to work on the post of Senior Accountant, entails paying adequate remuneration to the workman. Admittedly, the workman had worked for a period of time on the post of Senior Accountant. The Labour Court was justified in granting the wages for that period only. In view of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any error in the award passed by the Labour Court. The writ petition of the workman as well as the employer fails and are dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 04.12.2009 LSR/Shiv