On 02/07/2013 Parties are represented. By this order petition No. 32 dated 12.02.2012 is disposed of. This petition is filed by O.P. Mo. 1 and O.P. no. 2 for modification of direction in judgement dated 01.08.2011 of this case. After pronouncement and delivery of a judgement, there is little scope for any modification or correction of the judgement exception arithmetical and clerical mistake as per provision U.S 152 CPC.  Ld. counsel for the complainant Mr. Banipada Singah submitted contents of the petition is confusing and purposefully submitted to delay and defer he implementation of the Forum in its judgement dated 01.08.2011.It is submitted Chairman of the Primary Committee at Garden Level as narrated in Para No. 2 in page 2 of the petition are O.P Nos. 3 to 5. They contested the proceeding submitting written argument. So, the fact of having no knowledge of the present case is not true and correct. After verification and scrutiny of the case record, we find there is no necessity to rectify or modify the direction in the judgement. This Primary Committee at Garden Level is subordinate to O.P. No. 1 and 2 and completely under their control. It is their duty and responsibility to compel its subordinate committee to follow their order or direction as per P.F. Act and rules. O.P. No.1 and 2 are to implement and comply the direction in judgement. The petition is rejected and disposed of.If the payment is not made within reasonable time from this day, complainant may persue the same in an execution proceeding as it is about two years to be completed when the judgement is not yet implemented. After passing a regular judgement, such sort of application is not welcomed under law. Aggrieved party may seek legal remedy in appeal or revision if permitted by law of limitation.