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