JUDGMENT S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - The Petitioner had filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal against the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) which was decided on 1.4.85. Some of the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner were specifically decreed while in respect of the rest of the reliefs the Tribunal had directed the Corporation to consider the claim of the Petitioner in the light of the Service Rules and take a decision whether or not the Petitioner was entitled to those reliefs so that the Petitioner, as was observed by the Tribunal, may claim a redress in case he is aggrieved by the said order. 2. The Petitioner, in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Tribunal, approached the Corporation by representations made on 30th and 31st May, ly8i and again on 1st July ,1985. These representations were not disposed of by the Corporation and, therefore, the Petitioner filed another claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal which has, however, been dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment as not maintainable. 3. On behalf of the opposite party No. 1 Sri K.B. Sinha has put in appearance. Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 2 has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Sri K.B. Sinha, who has appeared on behalf of the Corporation, does not dispute the facts set out in the impugned judgment. The fact, therefore, remains that the Corporation was under an obligation to dispose of the claim set out by the Petitioner before it in his representation made on 30th and 31st May, 1985 and again on 1st July, 1985. This decision is to be taken by the Corporation in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Tribunal as the Corporation, which was a party in the claim petition, was bound by that judgment. If the Corporation sleeps over the matter it cannot but be said to act in disregard of the judgment or in violation of the directions issued by the Tribunal. These directions were issued in respect of the perquisites mentioned in Clauses (c) to (i) of para 20 of the claim petition. 5. If the Corporation sleeps over the matter it cannot but be said to act in disregard of the judgment or in violation of the directions issued by the Tribunal. These directions were issued in respect of the perquisites mentioned in Clauses (c) to (i) of para 20 of the claim petition. 5. Sri Sinha, learned Counsel for the Corporation, has pointed out that the Petitioner should have co-operated with the Corporation so that the Corporation could have taken a decision in the matter in which it was required to take a decision under the judgment passed by the Tribunal. The Petitioner, it is pointed out, was required to file certain affidavit but this was not done and as such the Corporation could not take a decision. This question is not required to be decided by me in the present petition. If the Petitioner had not co-operated in the matter and had not filed the affidavit, which was required by the Corporation, the Corporation could still decide the matter but it cannot ignore the directions issued by the Tribunal merely on the ground that the Petitioner had not co-operated. 6. Section 5(7) of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976 provides as under: 5(7)-Where the Tribunal makes any other order in favour of the claimant and against his employer or any other public servant, and such order remains uncomplied with for a period of three months, the Tribunal may, on his application, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount awarded, or as the case may be, for other relief granted by it, and any person in whose favour such certificate is issued may apply to the principal civil court of original jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he has for the time being been serving or last served such employer, for execution of the order of the Tribunal, and such court shall thereupon execute the certificate or cause the same to be executed in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for like relief made by itself in a suit. 7. 7. The direction of the Tribunal contained in its judgment dated 1.4.85 that "the U.P. State Sugar Corporation shall also pass a detailed order with regard to the perquisites mentioned in Clauses (c) to (i) of para 20 of the claim petition within two months" is a relief granted by it to the Petitioner against his employer, namely, the Corporation. 8. The order passed by the Tribunal is executable in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree passed by the civil court. The direction of the Tribunal can be equated to a decree for mandatory injunction requiring the employer to act in a particular manner. 9. In the instant case the employer, i.e. the Corporation has been directed to decide the relief claimed in para 20(c) to (i) of the claim petition within two months. This direction is executable u/s 5(7). A decree for mandatory injunction can be executed under Order 21 Rule 32, Code of Civil Procedure. 10. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was right in holding the present claim petition as not maintainable, as the Corporation has not yet decided the matter. The Tribunal was further right in its observation that it was open to the Petitioner to obtain a certificate of non-compliance u/s 5(7) of the Act. The certificate, as observed earlier, can be put to execution under Order 21 Rules 32, Code of Civil Procedure. 11. In view of the above the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed summarily.