1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.834 of 2011 Rajendran : Petitioner Vs. 1.The District Collector, Chennai. 2.The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Mount Road Branch, Chennai-2. 3.The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirappalli. : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the order of the third respondent as per his notice dated 29.12.2009 in No.A5/3216/10 by recovering the award amount of Rs.1,82,428/- with 12% interest from the date of accident i.e., 21.12.2003 till date of deposit from the second respondent to deposit the same in W.C.No.382 of 2004 on the file of the third respondent. For Petitioner :Mr.G.Arockiasamy For R1 & R3 :Mr.S.Shanmugavel Addl. Govt. Pleader For R2 :No Appearance O R D E R ********** The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to implement the order passed by the third respondent, dated 29.12.2009 by recovering the award amount with interest. 2. The petitioner appears to have sustained injuries during the course of his employment. Therefore, he preferred an application before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirappalli, the third respondent herein. The third respondent passed an award on 26.06.2009 determining the compensation at Rs.1,82,428/-. The second respondent was granted thirty days time to pay the amount, failing which it was indicated that they have to pay interest at 12%. 3. Since no further action was taken by the second respondent, the petitioner initiated proceedings before the third respondent. Accordingly, the third respondent issued proceedings, dated 29.12.2009 to initiate action under the Revenue Recovery Proceedings. However, there was no follow up action at the instance of the first respondent and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file the Writ petition. 4. The order passed by the third respondent dated 26.06.2009 shows that an award was passed in favour of the petitioner directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs.1,82,428/-. 5. Even though summons was served, the second respondent has not appeared before this Court to show as to whether any appeal was preferred against the award passed by the third respondent. Therefore, it has to be inferred that the award passed by the third respondent, dated 26.06.2009, has become final. 6. The first respondent being the Collector, was expected to implement the order passed by the third respondent. Even though request to that effect was sent to the first respondent as per proceedings dated 29.12.2009, there was no further action. 7. Therefore, I am of the view that interest of justice would be sub- served in case a direction is issued to the first respondent to collect the amount from the second respondent with interest by resorting to Revenue Recovery Proceedings. 8. Accordingly, the District Collector, Chennai is directed to recover from the second respondent, a sum of Rs.1,82,428/- with interest at 12% from 21.12.2003 by resorting to Revenue Recovery Proceedings. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No Costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector, Chennai. 2.The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Mount Road Branch, Chennai-2. 3.The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichirappalli. +1 CC TO MR. G. AROCKIASAMY, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 11529 +1 CC TO THE SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER S.R NO. 11552 W.P.(MD)No.834 of 2011 03.03.2011 pm PAM 23.03.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/