Judgment :- The petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are the Management of Hybro Chains Private Limited. They have come forward to challenge the order of the State Government (respondent herein) dated 9.11.2009. 2. It is seen from the records that certain workmen employed by the petitioner management (who have not been made as parties in these Writ Petitions) have raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award in I.D.Nos.291 to 304 of 2000 allowed the claim of the workmen. It is stated that the said Award is an ex-parte award. The Management filed W.P.Nos.6196 and 6203 of 2009 against the said Award. This Court by an order dated 29.4.2009 dismissed the Writ Petitions. Thereafter, it is claimed that the petitioner had filed one more Writ Petition in W.P.No.14005 of 2009. 3. The workmen filed a Claim Petition before the Labour Court for executing the Award under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act being C.P.No.529 of 2004. The amount was computed in favour of the workmen by the Labour Court by an order dated 18.12.2006. It is now stated by the Management that even the said order was an ex-parte order and they are taking steps to set aside the said order. However, the workmen moved the State Government under Section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act claiming revenue recovery certificate for recovering the amounts ordered by the Labour Court. The State Government after notice to the Management passed an order in G.O.Ms.Nos.111 and 112, Labour and Employment Department dated 24.2.2009 granted a revenue recovery certificate and directed the District Collector, Vellore to take steps to recover the amount. 4. A perusal of the order shows that a notice was issued to the Management. Subsequently when there was no reply, the order came to be passed. A copy of the order has also been marked to the management. However, the management filed W.P.No.14005 of 2009 before this Court contending that they were not heard before the certificate was issued. This Court believing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and without notice to the workmen passed an order dated 23.7.2009 directing the management to submit a representation before the Government, which shall be considered by the Government in accordance with law. This Court believing the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and without notice to the workmen passed an order dated 23.7.2009 directing the management to submit a representation before the Government, which shall be considered by the Government in accordance with law. Based upon this direction, the State Government passed the present impugned order stating that there is no case for reconsidering the earlier certificate and the reasons given by the management was not believable. Their stand is that they are facing financial crisis and most of their promoters are NRIs and residing in Srilanka and they could not arrange funds. It was also stated that the management has not produced any proof that their application to set aside the claim had resulted in any benefit to the management. It is this order which came to be challenged in this Writ Petition. 5. Heard Mr.Ramamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court did not find any merit in attacking the impugned order. First of all, the workmen, who are aggrieved have not been made as parties in these Writ Petitions. Secondly, the basic right of the workmen flows from the industrial dispute, which had resulted in a final award and the managements challenge to the said award is also rejected by this Court. In any event, the claim petition is based upon the benefits arising out of the award. Therefore, until the award is set aside, the claim of the workmen cannot be said to be either frivolous or not based upon any concrete right of the workmen. Lastly, a perusal of the revenue recovery certificate clearly shows that the management was issued with a show cause notice as found in reference No.3 in the certificate and the final order was also marked to the management. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that before issuance of the certificate, no notice was given to the management. This Court is unable to believe the said statement. In any event, since the revenue recovery certificate is in the form of execution by the court order under section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the absence of the petitioner making any credible defence to dislodge either the award or dismiss the claim petition, the present feasible attempt of non-issuance of notice cannot be accepted. In any event, since the revenue recovery certificate is in the form of execution by the court order under section 33-C (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and in the absence of the petitioner making any credible defence to dislodge either the award or dismiss the claim petition, the present feasible attempt of non-issuance of notice cannot be accepted. It must also be out of place to mention that the State Government has introduced amendment under section 11(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which enables entrusting the Labour Court with a power of execution of its own order. Therefore, the attempt to go to the Government to reconsider the revenue recovery certificate had become academic. In any event, this Court is satisfied that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. 7. In the light of the same, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.