JUDGMENT 1. - Crucial question which arises for determination in this revision is as to whether the executing court can go behind the decree so as to compute the amount payable by implication under the decree? 2. This question has emerged in the circumstances set out herein below : (i) Vide decree dated May 25, 1989 it was declared that the dismissal order passed by against non-petitioner Ram Babu Gupta on August 23, 1984 was unlawful and void and he was entitled to receive all the benefits as he would got, if no order would have been passed. (ii) In an execution petition filed by non-petitioner, the petition RSRTC raised objection about the executabity of the decree and also moved an application of March 31, 1995. (iii) The executing court vide order dated April 21, 1995 dismissed the application imposing Rs. 2000/- as costs on the petition. (iv) Against the said order present action for filing the revision has been resorted to. 3. Mr. P.C. Jain learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the executing court even without deciding the objections about the executability of the decree, dismissed the application and issued attachment warrant. The wages of the non-petitioners could not be calculated without recording the evidence to the effect as to whether h.. was gainfully employed or not? Mr. Jain learned counsel placed reliance on RSRTC v. Ladu Lal Mali [ 1996 (2) Supreme 384 ] : [ 1996(2) SLR 39 (SC)] , Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of U.P. [ 1996 (5) SCC 728 ] : [ 1996(5) SLR 667 (SC)] , M.D.U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee ( AIR 1980 SC 840 ) : [1980(l) SLR 497 (SC)] , RSRTC v. Krishna Kant ( AIR 1995 SC 1715 ) : [ 1995(2) SLR 784 (SC)] , Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s. Empire of India, ( AIR 1990 SC 255 ) , Ishar Singh v. National Fertilizers, ( AIR 1991 SC 1546 ) , Dipak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction, ( AIR 1987 SC 1422 ) : [1987(3) SLR 65 (SC)] , Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak, [ 1994 (5) SCC 572 ] : [1994(5) SLR 218 (SC)] , RSRTC v. Narain Singh, (S.L.P. (C) No. 17038 decided by Apex Court of December 16, 1994) . 4. 4. R.S.R.T.C. v. Ladu Lal Mali (Supra) was the case where the Supreme Court propounded as under: "It is settled law that executing court cannot go behind the decree. In view of the fact that the decree contained only on declaratory relief without any consequential payment of monetary benefits the executing court was right in referring to grant the relief." 5. Rameshwar Das Gupta v. State of U.P. (Supra) was the case where it was held by the Supreme Court that "An executing court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. It gets jurisdiction only to execute the order in accordance with the procedure laid down under Order 21 CPC. In view of the fact that it was a money claim, what was to be computed was the arrears of the salary, gratuity and pension after computation of his promotional benefits in accordance with the service law. That having been done and the court having decided the entitlement of the decree-holder, the executing court exceeded its jurisdiction in stepping out and granting a decree for interest which was not part of the decree for execution on the ground of delay in payment or for unreasonable stand taken in execution. The order of the executing was without jurisdiction and therefore, void." 6. M.D.U.P. Warehousing Corporation v. V.N. Vajpayee (Supra) was the case when it was indicated by the Supreme Court that "Whether a workman or employee of statutory authority should be reinstated in public employment with or without full back wages, is a question of fact depending on evidence to be produced before the tribunal. If after the termination of his employment the workman/employee was gainfully employed elsewhere, that is one of the important factors to be considered in determining whether or not the reinstatement should be with full back wages and with continuity of employment." 7. RSRTC v. Krishna Kant (Supra) was the case where the Supreme Court laid down the principles as regards jurisdiction of civil courts in relation to dispute between employer and employee. 8. Jitendra Nath Biswas v. M/s. Empire of India (Supra) was the case where the Supreme Court observed that' the scheme of the Industrial Disputes Act clearly excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by implication in respect of remedies which are available under the Act and for which a complete procedure and machinery has been provided in the I.D. Act. 9. 9. Ishwar Singh v. National Fertilizers (Supra) was the case where it was held by the Supreme Court that the matters which come within the purview of section 9 of the CPC are maintainable in the Civil Court but claim for back wages after employee stands superannuated cannot be granted by the said Court. 10. Deepak Kumar Biswas v. Director of Public Instruction (Supra) was the case where it was held that the declaration sought by lecturer that he continues to be in service of college, cannot be granted since refusal though erroneous was not in contravention of statutory rules. Supreme Court, however, under article 136 directed to pay three years salary and allowances by way of compensation to him. 11. Syndicate Bank v. K. Umesh Nayak (Supra), where it was held that wages during strikes period were-not payable if strike was not legal or justified. 12. RSRTC v. Narain Singh (Supra) was the case in which the Supreme Court observed thus: Special leave granted in all the cases. The respondents, in the appeals herein, were working as Conductors/Stores In-Charge/Drivers, in the service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (the Corporation). Their Service were terminated in the year 1976 and thereafter on different dates. They challenged the orders of termination by way of civil suits in different courts. The suits were decreed. The civil courts declared the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement and consequential monetary benefits. In some of the cases the Corporation has filed appeal which are pending. All the respondents, in these appeals, filed execution proceedings before the executing courts. In the said proceedings the Corporation raised an objection that the decree being only declaratory the relief of back-wages could not be given. The Executing Court dismissed the objections. The High Court up held the orders of the Executing Courts and dismissed the revision petitions filed by the Corporation. This is how the Corporation is before us in these appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of these cases and to meet the ends of justice, we direct as under: (1) The respondents, in all the appeals herein, are entitled to be reinstated with effect from the date of the decree in their favour. Those who have not been reinstated despite decrees in their favour are entitled to wages from the date of decree onwards. Those who have not been reinstated despite decrees in their favour are entitled to wages from the date of decree onwards. We direct the Corporation to pay salary/wages to the respondents from the date of decree onwards. It shall be down within four months from today. Needless to say that all those respondents who have reached the age of superannuation meanwhile shall be entitled to the wages till the dates of their superannuation. (2) So far as back-wages prior to the date of decree are concerned, we direct that the respondents shall be entitled to 40 of the back-wages. The back-wages shall be calculated and paid to the respondents within four months from today. We make it clear that even if the appeals filed by the Corporation succeed, the respondents shall not be asked to refund the back-wages received by the pursuant to this order. In all other respects the appellant order shall be binding on the parties subject to other remedies available to them under law. (3) In case the Corporation has already paid full back-wages to any of the respondents the same shall not be recovered from them even if the amount so paid is more than 40 as directed by us. 13. The principles that can be deduced from the above authorities are that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. The employee in whose favour the decree for reinstatement is passed, is entitled to back wages. The said wages can be calculated after inquiry as to whether the employee was gainfully employed or not during the period he was out of service. 14. In the instant case the Executing Court determined Rs. 87,690/- to be paid to the decree-holder after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner out of which the petitioner already paid Rs. 22,160/- to the decree-holder and for remaining amount the application was filed by the decree-holder. As earlier order for determining the wages has neither challenged nor placed before me, I am not in a position to embark on it. I can only say that if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have challenged it. The order imposing costs however, appears to be unreasonable. The costs, in my view, have been imposed without property appreciating the provisions contained in section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. I can only say that if the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have challenged it. The order imposing costs however, appears to be unreasonable. The costs, in my view, have been imposed without property appreciating the provisions contained in section 35B of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Consequently, partly allow this revision and the impugned order so far it relates to the imposition of costs; is set aside. The other objections filed by the petitioner before the executing court may be disposed of in accordance with law.Revision allowed. *******