JUDGMENT :- 1. Both the writ petitions were filed by the Management of Vasambadi Estate at Yercaud. In the first writ petition (W.P.No.11327/2010), the challenge is made to the notice dated 05.05.2010 issued by the Tahsildar, Yercaud, the second respondent. 2. By the impugned notice, the petitioner Estate was informed that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem had directed him to recover a sum of Rs.17,10,538.44 together with suit costs of Rs.300/- payable to one K.Thavasimuthu and 158 workers working in the Estate as arrears of land revenue. When a notice for hearing was given on 28.08.2009 before the second respondent, the representative of the Management sought 15 days' time for paying the said amount and despite extension of time was granted, they did not pay the amount. Thereafter, in the further enquiries held on 14.09.2009 and 20.10.2009, the petitioner Management did not appear and when the Tahsildar went to the house of the Estate Owner, through his staff, he was informed that he had gone to the hospital. Therefore, the petitioner was given a final warning to pay the amount on or before 13.05.2010, failing which revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated. It was thereafter, the distraint notice was given on 13.05.2010. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 02.06.2010. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-to the credit of the Labour Court, Salem. 4. In the meanwhile, a Trade Union by name Neelamalai Plantation Workers' Union represented by its General Secretary, claiming to represent the interest of the workers got itself impleaded as third respondent vide order of this Court dated 23.07.2010. Two Vacate stay applications in M.P.No.3 of 2010 and M.P.No.4 of 2010 were filed by the Neelamalai Plantation Workers' Union and the Revenue Division Officer, Salem respectively to vacate the interim order granted by this Court on 02.06.2010. 5. It is claimed by the Management that they had deposited the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-before the Labour Court to the credit of C.P.No.117 of 2006. 6. Realising that they have challenged only the consequential proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition (W.P.No.18023 of 2010), challenging the order of the Government in G.O.(D)No.442, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.10.2008. 6. Realising that they have challenged only the consequential proceedings issued by the Tahsildar, the petitioner has filed the second writ petition (W.P.No.18023 of 2010), challenging the order of the Government in G.O.(D)No.442, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.10.2008. It is by that order, the State Government authorised the District Collector, Salem to recover the amount of Rs.17,10,536.44 together with interest at 6% as arrears of land revenue in terms of Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said order arose out of the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.117 of 2006 dated 10.01.2007. Thereafter, the workmen led by Thavasimuthu and 158 others sent an application to the State Government for issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate. After giving due show cause notice to the Management, the Revenue Recovery Certificate came to be issued. 7. The second writ petition was admitted on 09.08.2010. In that writ petition, in the application for interim stay, only notice was ordered. 8. In these two writ petitions, it is unfortunate that the petitioner Management never challenged the substantive order which gave rise to the issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate by the State Government. As long as the order passed by the Labour Court in C.P.No.117 of 2006 filed under Section 33-C(2) of the I.D.Act dated 10.01.2007 is not challenged, the consequential proceedings by which the workmen sought to execute the order can never be challenged. As can be seen from the recent notice issued by the counsel for the Receiver managing the Estate, an application to set aside the ex parte order before the Labour Court is pending. If that is so, nothing prevented the petitioner from activating that application. 9. It must also be noted that the claim covered in these writ petitions arose out of payment of minimum wages to the Plantation workers. The State Government issued G.O.(2D)58 Labour and Employment Department, dated 30.08.1995 revising the rate of minimum wages for plantation workers. The petitioner Management challenging the same filed a writ petition being W.P.No.15332 of 1995 before this Court. That writ petition was dismissed on 12.12.1998. Though a review application was filed, the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the estate workers gave strike notice for non-implementation of the minimum wages notification. In order to appease the workers and to prevent the strike action, the estate management signed a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act on 03.12.2003. That writ petition was dismissed on 12.12.1998. Though a review application was filed, the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, the estate workers gave strike notice for non-implementation of the minimum wages notification. In order to appease the workers and to prevent the strike action, the estate management signed a settlement under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act on 03.12.2003. By the said settlement, the Management agreed to pay the arrears of minimum wages for the period from 1995-2000 on or before 31.01.2004 failing which the plantation workers were assured of payment of 12% interest with effect from 01.09.1995. It is only when the settlement was not implemented, the workmen filed a claim petition before the Labour Court, being C.P.No.117 of 2006. Despite notice being served on the said claim petition to the petitioner Management, they did not appear and thereafter, the computation order was made by the Labour Court on 10.01.2007. 10. The contention of the Management that they did not get any notice on the Revenue Recovery Proceedings is also refuted by the workers and it was pointed out that notice issued by the Government was received by the Joint Receiver and they have not come to this Court with clean hands. 11. Before dealing with the merits of the issue raised in these writ petitions, it must be noted that the Supreme Court has held that non-payment of minimum wages will amount to forced Labour ("I.Begar") which has been specifically prohibited by Article 23 of the constitution. (For Reference see: People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCC 235 and Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan (1983) 1 SCC 525 ) 12. In the present case, the rights of the workers did not flow from the settlement or from the claim petition but by the minimum wages notification issued by the State Government and which has become final as the writ petition filed by the petitioner Management was dismissed by this Court. The Labour Court had merely computed the amount due on the basis of the notification. Even assuming that if the petitioner Estate had participated in the proceedings, they could not have denied the existence of the settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act. Further, Thavasimuthu and 158 workers are the beneficiaries and they have not been impleaded in these writ petitions though they are necessary and proper parties to the writ petitions. Even assuming that if the petitioner Estate had participated in the proceedings, they could not have denied the existence of the settlement signed under Section 12(3) of the I.D.Act. Further, Thavasimuthu and 158 workers are the beneficiaries and they have not been impleaded in these writ petitions though they are necessary and proper parties to the writ petitions. 13. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Prabodh Verma v. State of U.P., reported in (1984) 4 SCC 251 had clearly held that in case of the affected parties not being made as parties, the High Court should dismissed the writ petition for non-joiner of parties. On this short ground also, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. Further as noted already, the revenue recovery certificate and the notice issued by the Tahsildar are only in furtherance of the substantive order obtained by the workmen and as long as that order was not under challenge, the question of entertaining these writ petitions will not arise. 14. In view of the above, both the writ petitions will stand dismissed. In the light of the dismissal of the writ petitions, it is open to the workers to withdraw the amount lying in deposit with the Labour Court and claim the balance by activating the revenue recovery certificate. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.