MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th October, 2006 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1. A reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal No. 1 on the following dispute: ?whether the workman Shri Om Prakash s/o Shri. Murari Lal is entitled to be granted pay scale and status of a Driver w. e. f. 20. 1. 1993 and the wages attached to the said category and if so, what directions are necessary in this respect?? ( 2 ) THE learned Industrial Tribunal No. 1 received evidence adduced by the parties and disposed of the matter under its award dated 18th July, 2006 holding that the workman is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him that though he was appointed as Mali he is entitled to pay scale of driver, a higher post without having any appointment or approval from the competent authority. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid award, a writ petition was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed. ( 4 ) THE appellant has admitted in his statement (Exhibit WW1) that he was initially appointed as Mali and later on regularised as Mali on 1. 4. 1988. The initial appointment was as Mali and later on regularization was also as Mali. There is no material to establish that the principal duty that was being performed by him was that of a Driver and not of a Mali. The presumption is that the principal duty of the appellant was of a Mali. Reliance is placed by the appellant on the statement of Shri R. K. Mehra, Assistant director (Horticulture), MCD and Exhibit MW1/2, a log book maintained by the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the said log book was maintained with the approval from the competent authority. It transpires from the record that the appellant admitted that sometime his services were also utilised as driver but principally he was discharging duties of a Mali. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned industrial tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, is not required to be upset by reappreciating the same. Since, the workman was appointed as Mali, he cannot avail the benefits for the post of Driver. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned industrial tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, is not required to be upset by reappreciating the same. Since, the workman was appointed as Mali, he cannot avail the benefits for the post of Driver. Moreover, the contentions of the appellant that he be given additional benefits as he was working as Heavy Vehicle Driver was found to be without any merit by the learned Industrial Tribunal in view of the decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Sweleh Vs. UOI 1997 (4)SC 654 wherein it was held that the workman cannot be given additional remuneration for doing the additional work of a higher post. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Industrial Tribunal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.