JUDGMENT Honble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner is the Sugar Corporation and has filed the present writ petition challenging the validity and legality of the award of the Labour Court, by which, it has directed the Corporation to give an appointment to the son of the workman on the post, on which, his father was working at the time of his retirement along with arrears of wages from the date of the retirement of his father. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that a dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference is some what like this : “Whether the employers were justified in not giving an appointment on the post of Mechanist to the son of the workman, Mukhtyar Singh w.e.f. 21.4.1983 upon reaching the age of superannuation?” 2. The Labour Court, after considering the matter, found that there was a settlement between the erstwhile employer and its workers to give an appointment to the heirs of retired workers as well as to the heirs of those workers who had died in harness. The Labour Court on the basis of this settlement held that the present employer was bound by the settlement and that the workman having retired, his son was entitled to be given an appointment on the post, on which, the father was working. 3. Having heard Sri R.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for the workman, the Court finds that the Labour Court has misread and misinterpreted the settlement. Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit is a copy of the settlement entered between the erstwhile employer and its workers which is duly registered under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, in which, it has been stated that the heirs of the deceased workman or a retired workman would be given work as a substitute. The learned counsel for the respondents has also invited my attention to a notification dated 15.7.1982 issued by the State Government under Section 3(b) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, wherein a similar provision was inserted for appointment of the heirs of a retired workman. The learned counsel has placed emphasis on clause (3) of the said order. This notification under Section 3(b) is not at all applicable to the petitioner’s case. The learned counsel has placed emphasis on clause (3) of the said order. This notification under Section 3(b) is not at all applicable to the petitioner’s case. This notification indicates that surplus workers will not be retrenched but will be kept in a surplus pool and would be absorbed as and when a vacancy occurs. Clause (3) of the said notification indicates, that in the event, an unskilled worker retires and in the absence of availability of a workman from the surplus pool, in that case, the post would be offered to an heir of a retired workman provided that he was found fit for the said post. This clause creates two impediments, namely that there is no worker available from the surplus pool, and secondly an unskilled workman retires and an heir of the unskilled workman is fit for the post. 4. In the present case, there is no finding that a workman from the surplus pool was not available. Further, the workman retired as a Machinist which is a skilled post and, consequently his son could not be given an appointment under this notification. 5. Consequently, the only way under which the award can be sustained is under the settlement entered between the erstwhile employer and its workers. Clause 9 of the settlement indicates that the son of a retired workman could be offered work as a substitute. Under the Standing Orders relating to a workman employed in vacuum pan sugar factories, different categories of workers can be engaged and one such category is a substitute which is different and distinct from a casual, temporary or a permanent workman. A substitute is employed when a temporary or a permanent workman goes on a short leave and a casual vacancy occurs. 6. In the present case, the Labour Court has directed that the son of the retired workman should be appointed on the post of Machinist which is a skilled post and also a permanent post. According to the settlement an heir of a retired workman could not be absorbed on a permanent post. At best, he can be employed as a substitute as and when a temporary vacancy occurs. According to the settlement an heir of a retired workman could not be absorbed on a permanent post. At best, he can be employed as a substitute as and when a temporary vacancy occurs. Consequently, on this short ground, the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed but the Court refrains from quashing the award on account of the fact that pursuant to the award, the workman has been appointed as a Class IV employee and is working on the said post till date as per the statement of the learned counsel for the workman. This petition was filed in the year 1990. Nineteen years have elapsed. The son of the retired workman is working as a Class IV employee. No complaint whatever has been brought on record to indicate that his performance was not upto the mark. Consequently, at this stage, this Court finds that the appointment of the son of the workman as a class IV employee should not be disturbed. However, the direction of the Labour Court that the workman should be appointed with effect from the date of retirement, i.e., w.e.f. 28.2.1987 and that he should be paid wages from that date is erroneous. No wages could be paid to the son of the retired workman since he has not worked from 20.2.1987. The son of the retired workman can only be paid the wages from the date when he started working as a Class IV employee. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed and the award of the Labour Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. ————