D. S. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Mukul Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. Dhaval C. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the opponents. ( 2 ) THE applicant invokes contempt jurisdiction of this Court for implementation, enforcement and execution of the order dated 6/08/1997, passed by the industrial Tribunal, in Reference (IT) No. 312/1994. ( 3 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that the order sought to be enforced by the applicant, with the assistance of this court, through its contempt jurisdiction, is an "award" as defined in Section 2 (b) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947, and for enforcement of the order, there exists effective alternative statutory remedy under Section 33-C of the Act. ( 4 ) THE contempt jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be used for the purpose of execution of any order, decree or award, especially when there is an adequate alternative remedy available therefor. This view is, inter alia, fortified by the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki vs. Nagjibhai muljibhai Patel, reported in 2002 (2) Gujarat Law Herald, at page 754. ( 5 ) UNDER the circumstances, the Court declines to initiate contempt proceedings against the opponents. The application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .