( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed by the Management of Coromandel Fertilizers Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, assailing the correctness of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 29. 9. 2000 made in W. P. No. 9396 of 1999 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant company. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition, before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ), the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I. T. I. D. No. 6 of 1989 is not enforceable. On consideration of this contention in the context of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal which is sought to be executed by filing an application under Section 11-B of the Act and also taking into account the subsequent settlement entered into between the parties under Section 12 (3) read with Section 18 of the Act, the learned Judge recorded a finding that the award which is sought to be executed is not executable under Section 11-B of the Act. The learned Judge having held so directed the Industrial Tribunal to conduct necessary enquiry as to the fulfillment of the conditions of the award as to need and suitability for absorption of the 2nd respondent in terms of the award. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and with respect we are of the considered opinion that the direction now issued by the learned Judge was not warranted particularly in view of the finding recorded by the learned Judge referred to above with which we respectfully concur. The operative portion of the award sought to be executed reads as under;". . . . THE workmen removed from canteen operations service by the implementation of the above said GO shall be appointed in the canteen operations of RI in the canteen to be run by it subject to the necessity and suitability to maintain the said canteen and any surplus labour found may be kept in reserve list and be utilized subsequently for absorption as and when vacancy arises in the canteen service on the basis of their internal seniority. " ( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge is fully justified in holding that the above award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is in the nature of a preliminary decree. It is also matter of record that after the above award, the management and the majority trade union in the industry entered into a binding settlement under Section 12 (3) read with Section 18 of the Act. It needs to be emphasized that the above award came to be passed by the Industrial Tribunal at the behest of the trade union and not the petitioner herein. Although Sri. C. R. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the management would submit that the petition filed by an individual workman under Section 11-B of the Act is ex-facie not maintainable for want of espousal apart from other reasons, we do not find any necessity in this case to deal with that bigger question. Therefore, we leave it open the bigger question whether an individual workman who is a beneficiary under an award passed by an Industrial Court at the behest of a trade union to which he belongs can maintain a separate application under Section 11-B of the Act to execute such award in an appropriate case. For the disposal of the present writ appeal it is suffice to state that since the award which is sought to be executed under Section 11-B of the Act is not an executable award and therefore is not maintainable. There was no necessity or warrant for the Court to direct the Industrial Tribunal to conduct necessary enquiry as to the fulfillment of the conditions of the award as to the need and suitability for absorption of the workman concerned in terms of the award. We say this because the direction now issued by the learned Judge impugned in this writ appeal goes beyond the scope of the petition filed under Section 11-B of the Act. ( 5 ) IN the result, we allow this writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition and declare that the petition filed by the 2nd respondent workman under Sectionn11-B of the Act for execution of the award dated 19. 6. 1991 in I. T. I. D. No. 6 of 1989 is not maintainable. No costs.