ISLAM ALI Vs. DAYARAM AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Returnable forthwith. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Waive service through shri Thakkar and Respondent Nos. 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-workmen obtained order in his favour from the 2nd Labour Court, Mumbai, on 20-7-1996 in application (IDA) No. 228 of 1994 directing Respondent Nos. 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 13-2-1997 issued a certificate under Section 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 respondent Nos. 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-section (2) of Section 33-C 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 13-2-1997 and the Writ Petition was filed on 6-2-1998 as the Collector has failed to recover the amount due. We are surprised that the Government's tendiness. Respondent Nos. 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-section (2) viz. , three months, is reasonable and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should endeavour to recover the certified amounts, within such period, except where there are extra-ordinarily good reasons for delay.