Judgment :- Challenging the recovery notice dated 111. 2006 vide Aa3/10542/2006 passed by the 1st Respondent the writ Petitioner has filed this writ petition. .2. Facts in nutshell are as follows:- .The 3rd Respondent was working as a painter with the writ petitioner (Karapakkam Anadhai Illam) on a daily wages of Rs.130. On 111. 1998, when the 3rd Respondent was doing painting work in the building belonging to the writ petitioner he has fallen down as the sarakambu broke down and during the course of his employment the 3rd Respondent has sustained fracture and dislocation in the right wrist, head injury and multiple injuries. The 3rd Respondent was taken to private doctor at Thiruvanmiyur and subsequently he has taken treatment on Government Hospital Chennai, stating that he has sustained injuries during the course of his employment. 3rd Respondent has filed W.C.114/99 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. 3. In the proceedings before 1st Respondent notice was sent to Karapakkam Anadhai Illam. The opposite party neither appeared nor filed their counter and therefore the 1st Respondent set them exparte on 211. 1999. In W.C.No.114/999 the 3rd Respondent was examined and AW1 and Exs.A1-A5 were marked. Upon consideration of the evidence of 3rd Respondent and documents, the 1st Respondent has passed an award in W.C.No.114/99 (dated 24.01.2000) awarding compensation of Rs.59,856/-for the injuries sustained by the 3rd Respondent. 4. For recovery of the compensation amount of Rs.59,856/-, the 1st Respondent has sent recovery notice / Impugned notice in Aa3/10542/2006 dated 111. 2006, calling upon the writ petitioner to deposit Rs.59,856/-failing which Revenue Recovery proceedings would be initiated for the recovery of the amount. .5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.S. Muthukrishnan, has submitted that the award was passed only against the "Karapakkam Anadhai Illam" and where as the writ petitioner is "Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre" and therefore no steps could be taken to recover the amount under Revenue Recovery Act. The learned counsel would further submit that since erroneous award was passed by the 1st Respondent the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India is maintainable. 6. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, for 1st and 2nd Respondent. 7. The learned counsel would further submit that since erroneous award was passed by the 1st Respondent the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India is maintainable. 6. Heard the Learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.N.Senthil Kumar, for 1st and 2nd Respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting 3rd Respondent Mr.R.G.Annamalai, would submit that after due enquiry the award was passed in W.C.No.114/99 and the same was not challenged by writ petitioner at any point of time. It was further submitted that the Respondent against whom award was passed in W.C.No.114/99 is one and the same and the writ petitioner cannot avoid the payment of the compensation amount. 8. Upon consideration of the evidence of 3rd Respondent and the documents produced by him, the 1st Respondent has passed the award in W.C.114/99 way back on 24.01.2000. .9. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the award was passed against the opposite party "Karapakkam Anathai Illam" which does not relate to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner is a institution taking care of the children functioning in the name of "Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre". By perusal of the averments in the writ petition it is seen that the writ petitioner has got more than one name and functioning in two different places. As seen from the averments in para 2, the writ petitioner has got home for aged and destitute persons functioning at Annai Fathima Illam, 34, East Mada Street, Mylapore, Chennai-4 and Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre at Door No.48, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Karappakkam, Chennai-96. When the Petitioner institution has got more than one welfare centre the 3rd Respondent cannot be expected to know the correct name of the institution which has employed him. In any event, the question whether the opposite party in W.C.No.114/99 i.e., "Karapakkam Anathai Illam" and the writ petitioner "Annai Fathima Child Welfare Centre" are one and the same is a question of fact which cannot be gone into exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Even according to the writ petitioner after the receipt of notice, the writ petitioner has approached the office of the 1st Respondent and has learnt about the award passed in W.C.No.114/99. By perusal of the typed set of papers, it is also seen that the writ petitioner has sent a representation to the 1st Respondent on 211. 2006. 10. Even according to the writ petitioner after the receipt of notice, the writ petitioner has approached the office of the 1st Respondent and has learnt about the award passed in W.C.No.114/99. By perusal of the typed set of papers, it is also seen that the writ petitioner has sent a representation to the 1st Respondent on 211. 2006. If really the writ petitioner was so aggrieved, the writ petitioner ought to have taken proper steps before the 1st Respondent by filing necessary application to set aside the award or the writ petitioner ought to have challenged the award passed in the manner known to law. When there is efficacious alternative remedy available, the writ petition filed invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. .11. In 2005 (8) SCC 264 , U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd Vs R.S. Pandey and another. It was held that, When there is alternative remedy the High Court cannot entertain the writ petition unless there are appealing and exceptional circumstance. In this case there is no such special circumstance warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is all the more so, when the claim of the workmen who is aged about 60 years involved. 12. For the foregoing reason the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. No order as to costs.