Messrs Assam Small Industries -Development Corporation Ltd., Gauhati is the writ petitioner. The prayer in this writ petition is to set aside the award dated June 15, 1977 passed by tne Labour Court including the order dated March 13, 1978. The only point that is argued is that the Labour Court has power to review the order and the counsel referred to AIR 1964 SC 743 para 18 (Central Bank of India vs. Rajagopalan) which reads as under “18. Besides, there can be no doubt that when the Labour Court is given the power to allow an individual workman to execute or implement his existing individual rights, it is virtually exercising execution powers in some cases, and it is well settled that it is open to the Executing Court to interpret the decree for the purpose of execution. It is, of course, true that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree, nor can it add to or subtract from the provision of the decree. These limitations app]y also to, the Labour Court but like the executing Court, the Labour Court would also be Competent to interpret the award or settlement on which a workman bases his claim under sec. 33C (2). Therefore, we feel no difficulty in holding that for the purpose of making the necessary determination under sec. 33C (2), it would, in appropriate cases, be open to the Labour Court to interpret the award or settlement on which the workman's right rests.” Barring the citation of the cafe no other submissions have been made by the learned counsel. The counsel for the respondents referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 59? (Tata Consulting Engineers vs. Workmen) and relied on paras 12 and 15 to show that the Labour Court has no power.to modify the same. We do not see any reason as to why the award dated June 15,1977 and the order dated March 13, 1978 should be set aside. There is no tangible reason shown to support 'the grayer. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs.