( 1 ) IN all these matters the common question hat arises for the consideration of this Court is: whether filing of petition under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "contempt Act") before this Court directly is the only remedy for the purpose of ensuring that the awards or the other orders passed by the Labour Courts or the industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, are implemented? or are there provisions made under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "i. D. Act") for ensuring the execution of awards or orders made by the labour Courts or Industrial Tribunal?

( 2 ) BEFORE we examine the various arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is necessary to consider certain basic facts which are stated in the petitions.

( 3 ) IN all these petitions, the Labour Courts have passed the awards under the provisions of i. D. Act, and it is the contention of the petitioners that the awards are duly published as per the provisions of the I. D. Act and they have come into operation. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent employers are aware about the awards passed by the Labour Courts and their publication. However, inspite of the same, the awards are not implemented inasmuch as, neither the workmen are reinstated by the employer nor any amount of back wages is paid to them. Under the circumstances, all these petitioners have approached this Court by preferring these contempt petitions under the Contempt Act so as to initiate the proceedings under the contempt Act and to suitably punish them in accordance with law.

( 4 ) AT the stage of preliminary hearing, we had called upon all the learned counsel for the petitioners to address on the point as to why this court should relegate the petitioners to take the recourse including that of execution of award made under the provisions of I. D. Act itself. When we indicated the same, it was also made clear to them that the Court has power to initiate the proceedings under the Contempt Act, but, at the same time, when under the I. D. Act itself sufficient provisions are made by the legislature for the purpose of ensuring that the awards are implemented and executed, this Court would be loath to exercise its powers under the contempt Act, more particularly, in a case where it is a civil contempt. The other reason for indicating the same was that the contempt jurisdiction of this Court should not be treated as the machinery for the purpose of executing the awards of the Labour Courts or the industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, and it is only in the rare cases, this Court may initiate the proceedings under the Contempt Act, because the person who has committed breach of the orders passed by the competent Court which is subordinate to this Court. Since the matter was involving large public importance, we had also requested Mr. S. N. Shelat, Learned advocate General to render assistance so that this Court may be able to resolve the dispute effectively, and we must record that Mr. Shelat had readily rendered his assistance.

( 5 ) THE other reason for examining this issue at the preliminary hearing was that if the powers of this Court under the Contempt Act are used as an executing Court, then, in those circumstances, this Court would be required to initiate proceedings under the Contempt Act, even though, normal procedure or regular procedure for execution of decree are available under the CPC. Therefore, keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects, we are inclined to examine the wider question on the point that when the i. D. Act itself provides the remedy for execution of the award, this Court should normally not initiate the proceedings under the contempt Act in sound exercise of its judicial discretion.

( 6 ) MS. D. T. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner in Misc. Civil application No. 132/2002 contended that as per law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of