JUDGMENT : S.M.Daud, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to enforce the award made in favour of the petitioner in application No. (IDA) 399 of 1982. 2. Respondent No. 5 was running a business in the name and style of respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was employed in that business. There was a dispute between the employer and employee in respect of dues payable unto the letter. Therefore the petitioner moved the 8th Labour Court at Bombay by means of an application, which application came to be given the number mentioned above. On 4.10.1983, a settlement took place whereunder the employer agreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in full and final settlement of his claims. The amount was to be paid on or before 3.11.1983- As normally nap-pens, the payment was not paid and petitioner therefore moved the Labour Court for despatch of certificate of non-satisfaction and recovery of the amount by recourse to coercive measures. The certificate was sent to the second respondent and it is his case that proceedings were initiated and are still in progress, though without any success. This respondent says that he will be taking steps to direct the arrest of the defaulting employer, in case the required payment is not made. So far as the return of the fifth respondent is concerned, it is full of irrelevancies, one being the claim that on 11.12.1981, petitioner was paid his full dues in full and final settlement of the claim he had against the said respondent. The business which was run by him had been assigned with leasehold rights and goodwill to one Damodar Rane. Had a number of debts to pay which were still outstanding. 3. The only point for determination is whether the plea of satisfaction advanced by respondent No. 5 is substantiated? 1 find in the negative and direct respondent 1 and 2 to take effective and expeditious steps to enable the recovery of and amount accruing to the petitioner under the award. My reasons for so directing are given below:- 4. The employer places reliance upon a receipt dated 11.12.3981 receiving the payment of Rs. 11,201/- unto the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. Had this been true, the award would not have been passed in favour of the petitioner. My reasons for so directing are given below:- 4. The employer places reliance upon a receipt dated 11.12.3981 receiving the payment of Rs. 11,201/- unto the petitioner in full and final settlement of his claim. Had this been true, the award would not have been passed in favour of the petitioner. This award was passed on 4.10.1983 upon a compromise between the parties. A payment allegedly made more than two years prior to the date of the award can never pe accepted as negativing the award passed in favour of the petitioner. I need not waste any time discussing the employer's excuses for the non-satisfaction of his debts, including that arising from the award figuring in this petition. The reality is that the award has not been satisfied. The award was passed way back in 1983 and despite all steps taken by respondent No. 2, a workman continues to be deprived of the unpaid wages. More effective steps should be taken by respondent No. 2, and, that expeditiously. Hence the order. ORDER Respondents 1 to 3 do take effective and expeditious steps to enable the recovery of the award amount in favour of the petitioner. Rule to this effect made absolute, with costs of all the parties, being made payable by respondent No. 5.