ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy J.—The petitioner a workman in the respondent-industrial establishment having questioned his termination from service in a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, for short 'Act', in I.D.No. 163/1993 before the Labour Court, Bangalore, was successful in securing the award dated November 19, 1999 declaring illegal the order dated July 15, 1991 of dismissal and directing the respondent to reinstate him with 50% back-wages from the date of dismissal till reinstatement together with continuity of service. This award, it is not disputed when called in question in a writ proceeding by the respondent was confirmed and further affirmed by the Apex Court dismissing the Special Leave Application. The petitioner claiming to be entitled to computation of the consequential benefits under the award invoked Section 33-C(2) of the 'Act', by filing a claim application registered as No. 30/2005 before the Labour Court, Bangalore. That application was resisted by filing statement of objections following which the parties let in evidence in support of their respective claims and the Labour Court by order dated June 29, 2007 rejected the application. Hence, this petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and examined the order impugned. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the operative portion of the award did not direct entitlement to consequential benefits, nevertheless, in view of the finding of the Labour Court that the order of termination is illegal, by a fiction of law it is axiomatic that consequential benefits flow and therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in declining to compute in terms of the money, the consequential benefits. 4. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that the parties having litigated over the award right up to the Supreme Court, when the award was confirmed following which the respondent complied with the award, the Labour Court was justified in declining to compute in terms of money, consequential benefits. Learned senior counsel places reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Rajasthan S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. Learned senior counsel places reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Rajasthan S.R.T.C. and Another Vs. Ladulal Mali, (1996) 2 AD SC 237, to submit that a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the 'Act' being in the nature of a execution proceeding, to compute in terms of money, the benefits which the workman is entitled to either in terms of the award or an existing right under a settlement or the conditions of service, the Labour Court cannot go behind the award so as to entitle the, petitioner to consequential benefits not extended by the award. 5. There can be no doubt that the Labour Court held as illegal the termination of the petitioner's services and directed payment of 50% back-wages with continuity or service, but, did not extend consequential benefits. Though the directions were accepted by the parties since the award was confirmed both by this Court as well as by the Apex Court, the petitioner if aggrieved by the Labour Court not extending consequential benefits; ought to have challenged the award, or in the alternative, sought review, if permissible in law, and having not done so cannot contend that the termination being held illegal by a legal fiction, consequential benefits ought to be extended. Since the award does not extend the entitlement to consequential benefits, the Labour Court in my considered opinion was justified in declining to go behind the award and extend the said benefit and rightly rejected the application. It is trite law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the terms of the award and in that view of the matter, the Labour Court was correct in refusing to grant the relief by the order impugned. 6. The petition devoid of merit is rejected.