The central legal point established is the obligation of the government to ensure timely recovery of dues to workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Respondents 1 and 2 waive service through Sri Thakkar and respondents 3 and 4 waive service through Ms Desai By consent, rule called for and heard.

2. This writ petition makes a grievance that, though the petitioner-workman obtained order in his favour from the Second Labour Court, Mumbai, on 20 July, 1996 in Application (IDA) No. 228 of 1994 directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay the applicant a total amount of Rs. 1,97,629.89 and, though the Assistant Commissioner of Labour by his order, dated 13 February, 1997, issued a certificate under S. 33-C(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, money was not being recovered for one reason or the other. On behalf of the Collector and the Government of Maharashtra it was represented to us that auction sale of the property of respondents 1 and 2 could not be held on account of obstructive tactics by them. This reason is too facile to be accepted. The Government has enough power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to deal with recalcitrant defaulters, and it should exercise them.

3. Under the provisions of Sub-sec. (2) of S. 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the amount due to a workman has to be computed by the Labour Court, ordinarily, within three months, which period may be extended by the Labour Court for good reason. In the instant case, the certificate was issued on 13 February, 1997 and the writ petition was filed on 6 February, 1998 as the Collector has failed to recover the amount due. We are surprised at the Government's tardiness. Respondents 3 and 4 should ensure that the dues of the workman are collected within a reasonable period and, according to us, the period indicated in Sub-sec. (2), viz., three months, is reasonable and respondents 3 and 4 should endeavour to recover the certified amounts, within such period, except where there are extraordinary good reasons for delay.

4. Writ petition is allowed. On behalf of first and second respondent a sum of Rs. 1,96,629.89 (sic.) has already been deposited in this Court. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the said amount which shall be allowed without delay.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 and respondents 3 and 4 shall pay a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the petitioner as costs.

6. Rule accordingly made absolute.