THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9562 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not implementing the order, dated 30.06.2008 passed in P.G.Case No.3 of 2006 by the third respondent - Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short ‘the Act’) and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry, East Godavari, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is the applicant in P.G.Case No.3 of 2006, in which, the third respondent on the ground that there was delay in payment of gratuity amount to the petitioner, ordered the first and second respondents to pay simple interest @ 10% of the total amount of gratuity from 01.02.2003 till realization. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the order of the third respondent has become final, the first and second respondents are not enforcing the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in M/s.AGRA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., AGRA v. WORKMEN[1] and the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court reported in TAN INDIA WORKERS UNION v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR[2]. It is not in dispute that the amount, which was ordered by the third respondent to be paid by the first and second respondents, has not been paid to the petitioner. In such circumstance, the petitioner can move the third respondent for certification of the amount due to him so as to empower the Collector to recover such amount as the arrears of revenue and pay the same to the person entitled thereto. When such mechanism is provided under the Act, the petitioner without even making an application for certification, cannot file a writ petition seeking the declaration as prayed for. I n M/s.AGRA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., AGRA (1 supra), retiral benefits were not paid to the workmen even after the award was passed 14 years back and confirmation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court more than 8 years back. In view of long lapse of time, the award was directed to be implemented within a period of one month. So far as this case is concerned, the very application of the petitioner was decided only on 30.06.2008 and even according to the petitioner, he did not submit any application for certification of the amount due to him as per the order passed in P.G.Case No.3 of 2006. In TAN INDIA WORKERS UNION (2 supra), a direction was issued by the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court to the Controlling Authority to consider the application in accordance with law. For the facts of this case, the said two judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to grant relief to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that to recover the amount due to the petitioner in terms of the order, dated 30.06.2008, it is open to him to file an application as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder for enforcing the same. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 8th JUNE, 2010. kvni [1] (1987) 3 SCC 653 [2] 2002-LLN-4-388 (W.P.No.20987 of 2002)