The Executing Court's jurisdiction is limited to the parameters of the Award and the submissions made by the parties. The Award's directives must be interpreted within the context of the specific provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. This petition challenges the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (hereinafter "Executing Court") in Execution Petition No. 01/12 dated 4.1.2013 (hereinafter "impugned order"), which recorded that:

"However, it is an admitted fact that the Award dated 23.1.2012 has not been challenged by the Management/JD. It is also an admitted fact that the workmen have been ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 23.01.2012. The perusal of the Award shows that the refund of notice pay and compensation under Section 25FF of the Industrial Dispute Act is not a pre- condition of the reinstatement of the workmen. Therefore, the Management/JD is bound to reinstate the decree holder/workmen.

Accordingly, it is ordered that Management/JD shall reinstate decree holder/workmen without any further delay."

2. This order of the Executing Court is impugned on the grounds that it without jurisdiction, is contrary to law and has gone beyond the award dated 23.01.2012.

3. The Execution Petition No. 01/12 arose out of an Award dated 23.01.2012 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal in Industrial Dispute No. 207/10/05. The workmen, who are the respondents in this case, had challenged the termination of service of 362 workmen which was sought to be effected by way of a notice put up on the Notice Board of the petitioner/management in the aforesaid case. The case was referred to the Industrial Tribunal which passed the aforesaid Award directing the management of the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondents, treating the Respondents in continuity of service under the terms and conditions of service as before their alleged termination. The relevant portion of the Award reads as under:

"89. In view of above factual and legal position in law, workmen/claimants (except 43 workmen/claimants, who have settled their disputes u/s 18(1) of I.D. Act) are entitled to the relief of treating them in continuity of service under terms and conditions of service as before their alleged termination w.e.f. 3.10.04. They will not be entitled to any notice pay or compensation u/s 25FF of Industrial disputes Act. The said notice pay or compensation, if any, received by them will have to be refunded by them."

4. Pursuant to passing of this award, the Petitioner has consistently conveyed to the workmen its willingness to reinstate the workmen in the establishment of the Petitioner, to the extent possible, subject to the refund of the retrenchment compensation and notice pay paid to the workmen under Section 25FF of the ID Act. On 12.10.2012, the Execution Court had recorded that "during the course of arguments, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the JD that the management is ready and willing to reinstate the decree holders. The decree holders be reinstated in terms of the Award dated 23.01.2012" It was also recorded that the management had not challenged the Award.

5. The workmen had sought payment of back wages in terms of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 80, which held that where termination of services of workmen is held to be illegal, payment of full back wages is warranted. Conversely, the petitioner/management had refuted the said arguments on the basis of the Supreme Court's judgment in U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. vs. Udai Narain Pandey, AIR 2006 SC 586, which held that full back wages cannot be presumed or allowed automatically or mechanically only because an order of termination has been found to be unsustainable. The management also relied upon the dicta of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 73, to contend that computation and payment of back wages would not be maintainable where no specific direction has been given in this regard by the Industrial Tribunal and to the extent that the Award in the present case did not specifically mention