JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This execution petition has been filed for implementation of judgment passed by Single Bench of this High Court on 3.4.2012 in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 and connected Writ Petitions, seeking certain directions to respondent to pay the emoluments strictly as per bills furnished by Liquidator vide letter dated 31.7.2012, by depositing the same in Registry of this Court. 2. Petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest (hereinafter referred as petitioners) were serving in Central Cooperative Consumers Store, Shimla, who were deployed as Salesmen/Saleswomen at Public Distribution System of Super Bazar being run by HIMFED on management basis at Shimla. 3. Central Cooperative Consumer Store Ltd. Shimla went under liquidation and it had requested HIMFED to take services of petitioners for procurement and distribution of control articles vide letter dated 10.6.1994. HIMFED vide letter dated 18.6.1994 agreed to utilize 12 shops only for management purpose along with 18 workers (10 salesmen and 8 helpers) and relevant condition No.4 of letter dated 18.6.1994 reads as under:- “4. The workers employed in the running of these 12 shops will remain on your roll and Himfed will make payment of their salaries through you at the present pay scale being drawn by each worker.” 4. Petitioners preferred petition under Section 72 of Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 before the Registrar, H.P. State Cooperative Societies, who assigned the matter for adjudication to Deputy Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies (in short DRC). Claim of petitioners was that they were entitled for revised pay scale with all financial benefits. DRC vide order dated 26.7.2003 had held that petitioners were entitled to revised pay scale without arrears thereof. 5. HIMFED preferred an appeal before the Additional Secretary Cooperation (ASC) against the aforesaid order who decided the matter vide order dated 3.12.2005, which was assailed by HIMFED by filing CWP No. 272 of 2006 and vide order dated 21.6.2007 passed in the said Writ Petition, matter was remanded to ASC for fresh adjudication. ASC assigned the matter to Joint Secretary (Cooperation) who decided the appeal vide order dated 3.12.2007. 6. Order passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) was assailed by both, i.e. petitioners as well as HIMFED, by filing CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and CWP No. 1001 of 2008 respectively. Both these petitions were dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Single Bench of this High Court. 7. 6. Order passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) was assailed by both, i.e. petitioners as well as HIMFED, by filing CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and CWP No. 1001 of 2008 respectively. Both these petitions were dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2012 passed by Single Bench of this High Court. 7. In another set of litigation, dispute between petitioners and HIMFED was raised by petitioners before Conciliation Officer to the State Government under Industrial Disputes Act, which was referred to Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court as Reference No. 32 of 2001, which was answered by Labour Court on 15.6.2010, whereby petitioners were held entitled for grant of pay scale, annual increments, additional dearness allowance, interim relief and other regular allowances admissible to them on the basis of revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 8. The aforesaid award dated 15.6.2010 was assailed by HIMFED by filing CWP No. 5030 of 2010. The said petition was allowed by Single Bench of this High Court vide common order dated 3.4.2012 passed in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 along with CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and 1001 of 2008 and Award dated 15.6.2010, under challenge in CWP No.5030 of 2010, was set aside, whereas order, under challenge in CWPs No.342 of 2008 and 1001 of 2008, passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) was upheld. 9. The aforesaid common judgment was assailed by HIMFED as well as employees union of petitioners by filing LPA No. 477 of 2012 titled H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. vs. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others; LPA No. 4053 of 2013 titled H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. vs. General Secretary, Pradhan Employees Union and others; and LPA No. 107 of 2015 titled General Secretary, Pradhan Employees Union vs. H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumers Federation Ltd. and others. 10. Aforesaid LPAs were disposed of vide order dated 5.8.2015, on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for HIMFED at bar that HIMFED was ready to do needful in terms of para 15 of impugned judgment, by directing the HIMFED to do needful and take follow up action accordingly within eight weeks from the date of passing of order. 11. Claiming non-implementation of order passed by Court, Union of petitioners preferred COPC No. 963 of 2015, which was dismissed by Division Bench vide order dated 6.3.2017 with following observations:- “16. 11. Claiming non-implementation of order passed by Court, Union of petitioners preferred COPC No. 963 of 2015, which was dismissed by Division Bench vide order dated 6.3.2017 with following observations:- “16. From the aforesaid discussion, it is abundantly clear that the members of the petitioner-Union were never granted any benefit at par with the regular employees of the Federation and rather the writ petition (CWP No. 342 of 2008) filed by them was dismissed and the award passed by the learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal in their favour was specifically set-aside in the writ petition filed by the Federation (CWP No. 5030 of 2010). Therefore, the members of the petitioner-Union cannot claim any benefit over and above to what they were held entitled to in para-15 of the judgment passed by learned Writ Court as affirmed by learned Division Bench in LPA No. 4053 of 2013 along with other connected cases. 17. Even otherwise, the petitioner has placed no material on record whereby it can be gathered that they are not being paid an amount as specifically undertaken by the respondents before the learned writ Court and before the learned Division Bench in LPA. 18. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the notice issued to the respondent is ordered to be discharged. Petition stands disposed of.” 12. Review Petition No. 27 of 2017, preferred by Union of petitioners against order dated 6.3.2017, passed in COPC No. 963 of 2015 was dismissed vide order dated 29th March, 2019 with observation that any execution preferred by Union of petitioners may be continued and shall be decided on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced of the fact of dismissal of contempt proceedings. 13. Present Execution Petition No. 42 of 2012 was preferred by petitioners, on 20.12.2012. Prior to this execution petition, petitioners had filed Execution Petition No. 33 of 2012 for executing the order passed in CWP No. 342 of 2008, which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 3.4.2012 and therefore, execution of order of dismissal passed against the petitioners was not maintainable. 14. Thereafter, petitioners have filed present Execution Petition No. 42 of 2012 with prayer to issue direction for implementation of order dated 3.4.2012, on the ground that passed in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 and connected Writ petitions. 15. 14. Thereafter, petitioners have filed present Execution Petition No. 42 of 2012 with prayer to issue direction for implementation of order dated 3.4.2012, on the ground that passed in CWP No. 5030 of 2010 and connected Writ petitions. 15. CWP No. 5030 of 2010 was preferred by HIMFED and it was allowed and Award dated 15.6.2010 passed by Labour Court was set aside. Therefore, there is no Award in favour of petitioners in existence passed by Labour Court as said Award was set aside by Court in CWP No. 5030 of 2010. Therefore, Execution Petition preferred by petitioners to implement the order passed in CWP No.5030 of 2010 is meaningless and misconceived and, thus, is not maintainable. 16. So far as other petitions CWP Nos. 342 of 2008 and 1001 of 2008 are concerned, Execution Petition No. 33 of 2012 filed for execution of order passed in CWP No. 342 of 2008 was dismissed by this Court being not maintainable and CWP No. 1001 of 2008 was filed by HIMFED against order dated 3.12.2007 passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation). The said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 3.4.2012, referred supra. 17. LPAs preferred by parties were disposed of on 5.8.2015 in terms of Para-15 of aforesaid judgment dated 3.4.2012, passed by Single Bench, which reads as under:- “15. The Joint Secretary (Cooperation) in his order dated 3.12.2007 has held the workmen, as noticed above, entitled to annual increments. However, he has denied the D.A. and A.D.A. etc. to the workmen at par with the regular employees of the federation. It is made clear by way of abundant precaution that the workmen will get the benefits, which were payable to the workmen on 18.6.1994. Rather, Mrs.Ranjana Parmar has undertaken at the Bar that the monetary benefits to which the workmen were entitled on 18.6.1994 will be paid to them. She has also stated that the workmen have also been paid Rs.1000/- due to rise in price index. There is merit in the contention of Mrs.Ranjana Parmar and Mr.K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate that there was no master-servant relationship between the workmen and federation. The federation has merely agreed to help the workmen after the winding up proceedings were initiated. The Liquidator, legally speaking, could not order the federation to engage the workmen after the financial crises in the Central Cooperative Consumers Stores Limited (Supre Bazar), Shimla. Advocate that there was no master-servant relationship between the workmen and federation. The federation has merely agreed to help the workmen after the winding up proceedings were initiated. The Liquidator, legally speaking, could not order the federation to engage the workmen after the financial crises in the Central Cooperative Consumers Stores Limited (Supre Bazar), Shimla. The Workmen were being paid what was agreed as per letter dated 18.6.1994. There is neither any illegality or perversity or procedural impropriety in order dated 3.12.2007. The same is upheld.” 18. In aforesaid para, learned Single Judge had upheld the order dated 3.12.2007 passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation). The said order was passed by the said authority in appeal preferred against the order dated 26.7.2003 passed by DRC. 19. As per Section 38 of CPC the decree may be executed either by Court which passed it or by Court to which it is sent for execution. 20. Section 37 of CPC provides definition of ‘Court which passed a decree’. The relevant portion of Section 37 CPC reads as under:- “37. Definition of Court which passed a decree. The expression “Court which passed a decree”, or words to that effect, shall, in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include,- (a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and…..” 21. Undoubtedly, the decree passed by “Court at first instance” merges in final stage of judgment/decree passed by Higher Courts in appeal or revision. In present case, appeal was decided by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) and Civil Writ Petition and LPA arising thereto were decided by Single Bench and Division Bench of this High Court. Therefore, order passed by DRC has merged in final order passed by this High Court. 22. In present case, Civil Writ Petition has not arisen from omission or commission or order passed by any other authority, on administrative side, but writ petition in present case was preferred against order which has been passed by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) exercising power of Appellate Authority under H.P. State Cooperative Act for adjudicating an appeal preferred against order passed by DRC under Section 72 of H.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, in present case, the Writ Court is not a “Court at first instance” but is a Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, like other writ petitions preferred in the matters under Industrial Disputes Act against award passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal as well as in revenue matters wherein writ is preferred against the order passed by Financial Commissioner in the matters adjudicated by revenue authorities and in those cases “Court at first instance” is either Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal or Assistant Collector or Collector under Revenue Act, as the case may, be and in such eventualities, execution in such matters shall lie either before Labour Court or Revenue Court being “Court at first instance”. 23. In aforesaid facts, ‘Court of first instance’, in present case, is DRC, who had passed an order/Award under Section 73 after adjudicating the proceedings under Section 72 of the H.P. State Cooperative Societies Act, by exercising delegated powers of Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Therefore, execution of orders passed either in CWP No. 1001 of 2008 along with its connected petitions or in LPA No. 477 of 2012 or connected LPAs shall lie before Registrar, being ‘Court of first instance’, which has decided reference under Section 72 of H.P. State Cooperative Societies Act. 24. It is also apt to record that H.P. State Cooperative Societies Act is complete Code in itself, wherein, in Chapter-XI, provision for execution of Awards, Decrees, Orders and Decisions has been provided. Section 87 shall be relevant with reference to present matter, which reads as under: “87-Execution of order: (1) Every order made by the Registrar under section 69 or under section 86, every decision or award made under section 73 and every order made under section 93 or 94 shall, if not carried out, be executed according to the law and under the rules for the time being in force for recovery of arrears of land revenue: Provided that an application for the recovery of any sum shall be made- (i) to the collector and shall be accompanied by a certificate signed by the Registrar or by any person authorised by him in this behalf; (ii) within twelve years from the date fixed in the order, decision or award and if no such date is fixed, from the date of order, decision or award. (2) Any private transfer or delivery of or encumbrance or charge on, property, made or created after the issue of the certificate of the Registrar or any person authorised by him, as the case may be, under sub-section (1), shall be null and void as against the society on whose application the said certificate was issued.” 25. Chapter-XI of the H.P. State Cooperative Societies Rules provides procedure for ‘Execution of Decrees’. 26. In aforesaid facts and circumstances and provisions of law, I am of the considered opinion that execution in present case shall be in accordance with provisions of H.P. State Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, but certainly shall not be maintainable in present Court. 27. With aforesaid observations, present Execution Petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of their grievances, if still anything survives, and in such eventualities, delay and latches or limitation shall not come in their way as they were pursing the present petition bonafide, under legal advice, in this Court. 28. Needless to say for prayer to condone the delay, petitioners have to file appropriate applications which shall be considered and decided by concerned authority in light of aforesaid observations entitling the petitioners to claim benefit of Section 5 of Limitation Act. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.