Judgment :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. By consent, the Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. These Writ Petitions are filed by the very same petitioner one for direction against the first respondent -Deputy Commissioner of Labour cum Commissioner of Workmens Compensation - II, Chennai 600 006 to pass orders on the petition filed by the petitioner on 22. 2008 in unnumbered IA of 2008 in W.C.No.386 of 2004 and also consequently to forbear the respondents 2 to 12 from proceeding further with the award as per the award passed in the W.C. 3. In the second Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the third respondent dated 12. 2008. 4. It is seen that one Vadivelu is alleged to have worked as a Driver in Thiruvarasu Transport, Chennai 13. While driving the vehicle on 15. 2004, the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN04 H 8867 belonging to the petitioner was involved in an accident, consequent of which he died on 26. 2004. At the time of the accident, he was 34 years old and he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. 5. The respondents 8 to 12, who are the wife and children respectively of the deceased Vadivelu have approached the first respondent by filing W.C. No.386 of 2004, claiming compensation of Rs.5,15,000/-. In the said Workmen Compensation Case, the National Insurance Company was made as second respondent apart from Tiruvarasu Transport, 47, Adam Sahib Street, Royapuram, Chennai 13 as a first respondent, who is stated to be the employer. The Workmen Compensation Commissioner set the first respondent as exparte. The second respondent appeared but was unable to help the Commission, since the petitioners therein were unable to give insurance particulars. Ultimately, the first respondent Workmen Compensation Commissioner has passed an award on 110. 2005 against the first respondent in W.C, Thiruvarasu Transport, Chennai 13 granting an amount of Rs.3,95,733/-and rejecting the claim against the Insurance Company, since the insurance particulars have not been furnished. 6. Pursuant to the said Award at the instance of the respondents 8 to 12, in whose favour the Workmen Compensation Award has been passed, the second and third respondents have proceeded to attach the properties belonging to the first respondent in W.C and distraint order came to be passed on 12. 6. Pursuant to the said Award at the instance of the respondents 8 to 12, in whose favour the Workmen Compensation Award has been passed, the second and third respondents have proceeded to attach the properties belonging to the first respondent in W.C and distraint order came to be passed on 12. 2008 to the address of Thiruvarasu Transport, No.9, Elandanur Village, Aandar Kuppam checkpost, Chennai 600 103. Subsequently on 3. 2008, the fifth respondent has attached one Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 69 2133 for the amount of Award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner dated 110. 2005. 7. It is the case of the petitioner in both the cases that the Award passed under the Workmen Compensation Act dated 110. 2005 relates to the Lorry Registration No.TN04 H 8867, which does not belong to the Writ Petitioner. On verification, the writ petitioner has found that the vehicle containing such registration number TN 04 H 8867 is that of a two-wheeler and not Lorry. Therefore, according to the petitioner, apart from the fact that the Workmen Compensation Award is itself an exparte order and such award passed in respect of the accident said to have taken place relating to the vehicle, which does not belong to the petitioner and therefore the conduct of the Collector as well as the Revenue authorities in passing distraint order against the lorry belonging to the petitioner is not permissible in law. 8. In the mean time, the petitioner has also filed an application before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner on 27. 2008 for setting aside the exparte award so as to enable the petitioner to contest the case on merit and that application has not been numbered and therefore the petitioner has filed the said Writ Petition No.6215 of 2008 for a direction against the first respondent to take up the application and proceed with the same in accordance with law and on merits. 9. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 12, who were the claimants before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the husband of the 8th respondent late Vadivelu has in fact worked under the writ petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is running the various lorries in different names under the same establishment. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 12, who were the claimants before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the husband of the 8th respondent late Vadivelu has in fact worked under the writ petitioner. According to him, the petitioner is running the various lorries in different names under the same establishment. Taking advantage of a wrong registration number of the lorry given in the Award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the petitioner is evading the responsibility and therefore his contention is that even if the petitioner is aggrieved by the award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the remedy available under the Workmen Compensation Act is by way of appeal and therefore according to the learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 12 the petitioner cannot be permitted to canvas the correctness or otherwise of the Award passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. 10. Mr.Sivaji, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if only correct number of the vehicle was given by the respondents 8 to 12 before the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, there would have been possibility for the Insurance Company to have contested the case and a fair order would have been passed. He would also submit that as far as the vehicle No.TN 04 H 8862 is concerned, which is said to be the correct number, however wrongly given in the Award passed to the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the same has been duly insured with the National Insurance Company and is also having the policy and therefore if the respondents 8 to 12 take appropriate steps to amend, giving correct number of the lorry, the Insurance Company will be in a position to give the particulars, which will be benefitted to the respondents 8 to 12. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. 10. On the factual situation, which I have enumerated above, when it is admitted that the registration number stated as TN 04 H 8867 in the Award passed by the first respondent Workmen Compensation Commissioner has been wrongly mentioned, as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 8 to 12, it is for the said respondents to take appropriate steps to amend the particular part of the Award so as to enable them to take the benefit of the award being implemented in an appropriate manner. 11. 11. On the other hand, it is true that as against the Award, the petitioner has got a right of appeal. It is not in dispute that the award passed by the Commissioner is an exparte award and therefore the right available to the petitioner to file an appeal to set aside the exparte award. 12. In view of the same, without going into the merits or demerits, correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with following directions: i) The first respondent / Deputy Commissioner of Labour cum Commissioner of Workmens Compensation- II, Chennai 600 006 is directed to take up the unnumbered application filed by the petitioner on 22. 2008 for the purpose of setting aside the exparte award passed in W.C.No.386 of 2004 and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after giving necessary opportunity to the parties concerned expeditiously, in any event within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ii) Till the first respondent passes appropriate orders in the interlocutary application filed by the petitioner, the Revenue authorities, namely the respondents 2 to 6 are directed not to proceed further with the distraint order challenged in W.P.No.10003 of 2008. iii) It is made clear that after the first respondent passes appropriate orders in the interlocutary application, depending upon the nature of the order passed therein, it is for the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law. iv) Since pending the Writ Petition, the vehicle of the petitioner, which is sought to be attached has been released subject to some conditions to the respondents and also that this Court has directed the distraint order to be kept in abeyance, status quo as on date will be maintained till the final order is passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.