Judgment :- Heard the submissions made by Mr.S.Kanniah, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr.L.S.M.Hasanfizal, learned Government Advocate representing the respondents. 2. Ta.V. Passamighu Annan Venkatesnor, the petitioner herein was an employee of the Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Chennai. For the amounts due to him from the Management, the petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the file of the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.138 of 2005. The labour Court passed an order on 212. 2006 fixing the liability of the Management towards arrears of salary due to the petitioner at Rs.6,54,766/-. Pursuant to the said order, it seems the petitioner approached the Management as well as the Government for making payment of the said amount at the first instance and then the respondents for recovery of the said amount from the Management under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act as the Management was not forthcoming to voluntarily make the payment. However, as against the order passed in the C.P., the Management did file a writ petition in W.P.No.29623 of 2007 which came to be dismissed on 31.01.2008. .3. Meanwhile, the petitioner chose to file a writ petition in W.P.No.19852 of 2007 to direct the District Collector, Chennai/the second respondent herein to recover the amount from the Management and pay the same to the petitioner. This Court, by an order dated 29.06.2007, directed the Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment Department (the first respondent herein) to issue necessary certificate to the third respondent pursuant to the orders passed by the First Additional Labour Court, Chennai in C.P.No.138 of 2005 dated 212. 2006, if there was no other impediment, within four weeks from the date of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the first respondent herein passed an order in G.O.(D) No.647 dated 03.09.2007 issuing a certificate to the second respondent herein under Section 33-C(1) enabling the second respondent to take action under the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the above said amount. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent herein has directed the Tahsildar, Fort Thandaiyarpettai, Chennai-3 in proceedings Na.Ka.G1/20010/2007 dated 10.09.2007 to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and recover the above said amount. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed a contempt petition on the earlier occasion in Contempt Petition No.823 of 2007. Pursuant to the said order, the second respondent herein has directed the Tahsildar, Fort Thandaiyarpettai, Chennai-3 in proceedings Na.Ka.G1/20010/2007 dated 10.09.2007 to initiate proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and recover the above said amount. Meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed a contempt petition on the earlier occasion in Contempt Petition No.823 of 2007. This Court, after hearing, accepted the statement of the learned Special Government Pleader that the order had been complied with by the first respondent herein by issuing necessary certificate. In view of the same, the said contempt petition was closed as there was no contempt. 4. The petitioner has once again come forward with a similar contempt petition complaining that after the issue of the certificate by the first respondent herein, the second respondent has not pursued the matter and recovered the amount applying the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 5. The learned Government Advocate representing the respondents would state that mere omission or even deliberate refusal to perform a statutory duty may give rise to a cause of action for some other proceedings in a Court of law and not a contempt proceedings. The learned Government Advocate, after drawing the attention of this court to the orders passed in the writ petition as well as the earlier contempt petition, submitted that this Court was very much conscious of the fact that after the certificate was issued, the second respondent had to proceed with the recovery of the amount by applying the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, but still stopped with issuing a direction to the first respondent alone to issue the certificate under Section 33-C(1) and refrained from issuing any further direction to the second respondent to complete the recovery within any specified time. .6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the certificate required to be issued under the above said provision by the first respondent, will not be a certificate like a certificate of merit issued by a University or an Institution and that hence, the order of the Court passed in the writ petition should be understood to mean a further direction which follows as the consequence of the issue of the said certificate. This court is not in a position to accept the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. This court is not in a position to accept the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate representing the respondent, this Court consciously omitted to incorporate any direction to the second respondent and stopped with issuing a direction to the first respondent to issue the certificate under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said order has been fully complied with by the first respondent and the same has also been recorded by this Court in the earlier contempt petition namely, Contempt Petition No.823 of 2007 by its order dated 21.09.2007. Therefore, the second contempt petition namely, the present one is misconceived and no case of contempt has been made out. Hence, the Contempt Petition is dismissed.