THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. Nos. 16204 and 23985 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: W.P. No. 16204 of 2000 is filed by husband and son respectively of the deceased labourer (woman) seeking to initiate recovery proceedings against 3rd respondent as to the compensation awarded with interest in W.C. No. 79 of 1995 (NF) dated 13.6.1996 on the file of 1st respondent and to direct 2nd respondent to recover the decree amount of compensation and interest from 3rd respondent as directed by 1st respondent in proceedings No.A/W.C.79/95 (NF) dated 20.5.1999. Whereas, W.P. No. 23985 of 2000 is filed by the petitioner- Rice Mill seeking to declare the inaction on the part of 1st respondent in not disposing of the application filed by it to set aside the ex parte order dated 13.6.1996 and imposing penalty under Section 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act vide order dated 12.3.1999 in W.C. No. 79 of 1995 as arbitrary and illegal. Since both the writ petitions are identical and interlinked with each other, both of them are disposed of by this common order. W.P. No. 23985 of 2000: The petitioner is a Rice Mill. Respondents 2 and 3 filed claim petition under Section 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act since wife of 2nd respondent and mother of 3rd respondent died in an accident that occurred in the petitioner-Rice Mill on 7.5.1995. Though notices were served, the petitioner did not appear and in view of consecutive default in appearing before 1st respondent, respondents 2 and 3 were set ex parte and a detailed order was passed by 1st respondent on 13.6.1996, holding that respondents 2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.94,761/- and the petitioner was accordingly directed to deposit the said amount. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. It is the case of the petitioner that it was set ex parte on 13.6.1996 and the application filed by it on 25.11.1996 to set aside the said ex parte order is still pending and no date of hearing was fixed. However, as is evident, the writ petition is filed in the year 2000 i.e. after more than four years of passing of the order in W.C. No.79 of 1995 dated 13.6.1996. It is not the case of the petitioner that it was not served with notice or the accident, in which the wife of 2nd respondent and mother of 3rd respondent died, never occurred. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the question of reopening W.C.No. 79 of 1995 or reconsidering the order dated 13.6.1996 passed by 1st respondent does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. W.P. No. 16204 of 2000: It appears, wife of 1st petitioner and mother of 2nd petitioner, while working as labourer in 3rd respondent-Rice Mill, met with an accident on 7.5.1995, as a result of which, she succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, the petitioners filed application against 3rd respondent before 1st respondent under various provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and 1st respondent awarded an amount of Rs.94,761/- in W.C. No. 79 of 1995 dated 13.6.1996. Since 3rd respondent had not deposited the said amount, petitioners filed application seeking a direction to 3rd respondent to deposit the award amount, with interest. 1st respondent allowed the said application on 12.3.1999 and directed 3rd respondent to deposit the amount within 30 days. As there was no response from 3rd respondent, 1st respondent, vide proceedings No.A/W.C.79/95 (NF) dated 20.5.1999 requested 2nd respondent to initiate recovery proceedings against 3rd respondent under Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act. However, proceedings under Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act were not initiated and amounts were not recovered. Therefore this writ petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the order dated 13.6.1996. There is no necessity of going into all the details. 2nd respondent filed counter affidavit stating that against the order dated 13.6.1996 3rd respondent filed W.P. 23985 of 2000 before this Court and obtained stay of the said order, therefore, it could not be implemented. The said writ petition i.e. W.P. No. 23985 of 2000 has been dismissed by this Court just now, as above. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to implement the orders dated 13.6.1996 in W.C. No. 79 of 1995, forthwith. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 5-02-2010. MVB.