Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased Shakthivel who was was working as an Electrician in the 4th respondent factory. Since her husband died during the course of his employment in the 4th respondent factory, the petitioner filed a claim petition in W.C.No.278 of 2004 before the 1st respondent claiming compensation under Workmens Compensation Act against the 4th respondent. 2. The 1st respondent after considering the claim petition and the defence raised by the 4th respondent passed an order dated 30.01.2008 directing the 4th respondent to pay a compensation of Rs.3,12,534/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 09.01.2004 and Rs.2,500/-towards Funeral expenses within a period of 30 days. But the 4th respondent did not comply with the order passed by the 1st respondent. Hence the petitioner has again made an application before the 1st respondent on 24.12.2004 for recovery of the above said award amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. The 1st respondent, on an application filed by the petitioner dated 24.12.2004, in its proceedings dated 24.1.2009 directed the 4th respondent to pay the award amount within a period of 15 days and on failure to pay the amount, the above said amount would be recovered under the Revenue Recovery Act. But in spite of receipt of the proceedings, the 4th respondent refused to comply with the direction of the 1st respondent and did not pay the award amount. Hence the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 21.3.2009 in Na.Ka.A2/133387/08 to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act against the 4th respondent to recover the said amount. 4. Though the second respondent has received the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 21.3.2009, he had not taken any effort to recover the amount from the 4th respondent. Hence the petitioner issued a legal notice on 26.9.2009 to the respondents 2 and 3 requesting them to proceed under the Revenue Recovery act against the 4th respondent. Though the said legal notice was received by the 2nd respondent, he had not initiated any action against the 4th respondent. Hence the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate and perused the averments made in the writ petition. 6. Though the said legal notice was received by the 2nd respondent, he had not initiated any action against the 4th respondent. Hence the petitioner is constrained to file this writ petition. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate and perused the averments made in the writ petition. 6. Keeping the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, I find that the 4th respondent employer had not complied with the award passed in W.C.No.278 of 2004 by the first respondent. So the petitioner was not able to realise the amount awarded under the order dated 30.01.2008 passed in W.C.No.278 of 2004. 7. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to initiate the Revenue Recovery proceedings as against the 4th respondent to recover the amount covered under the order dated 30.1.2008 passed in W.C.No.278 of 2004 within a stipulated time. Accordingly the 2nd respondent is directed to initiate the Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the 4th respondent for the recovery of the amount covered under the order dated 30.1.2008 passed in W.P.No.278 of 2004 within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.