Typically not. The customary remedy is monetary damages (in this case, a return of the upfront payment, together with any additional sum the plaintiff would require in order to put him/her in the position he/she would have been in if you had completed the job as agreed). An award of specific performance is rare and requires, among other things, that the plaintiff show there is something unique and irreplaceable in your services.
In any case, one needs to be careful to distinguish the obligations of a cabinet making shop from any particular cabinet maker working for that shop. A mandatory injunction awarding specific performance against a particular cabinet maker is more sensitive given that it raises additional issues relating to slavery and touching on basic personal freedoms.
Ok. (Not really germane to this discussion.)
1. Air traffic controllers fall within a special class of persons who provide essential services, such that there are special policy reasons that would justify government intervention putting an end to an otherwise lawful strike or work stoppage.
2. It was their union that was ordered back to work. The very ability of 11,345 of them to personally refuse going back without legal sanction confirms the point. They were of course subject to professional sanction but that’s because, without cover of a legal strike, their refusal was a breach of the terms of their employment. In any case, it’s one thing to be able to fire someone (or impose other financial or professional penalties) for refusing to do a job and quite another thing to be able to force them to do the job.