V.M. Pancholi, J.

1. By way of this petition which is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 5.12.2014 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.45 in Recovery Application No. 18 of 2012.

2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:

"2.1 The respondents-workers filed Reference (IT) No. 75 of 1997 for regularization and for fixing their pay accordingly from the date of their appointment. The Industrial Court, Ahmedabad by an award dated 30.11.2000 partly allowed the said reference, whereby the petitioner was directed to regularize the services of the respondents-workers on the vacant post from the date of the entry of the said workers as per the seniority and the petitioner was also directed to pay the difference of amount payable to the respondents-workers in the cadre of clerk after pay fixation.

2.2 The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said award by filing Special Civil Application No. 1772 of 2001 before this Court. The said petition was admitted, however, no stay was granted. The respondents-workers, therefore, filed Civil Application No. 334 of 2002 in the said petition. This Court passed an order on 18.2.2002 in the said Civil Application, whereby the petitioner was directed to implement the award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the Industrial Court in Reference (IT) No. 75 of 1997 subject to outcome of the main petition. The petitioner, therefore, filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 570 of 2002 and challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner has withdrawn the said appeal and thereafter filed M.C.A. No. 835 of 2003 in Civil Application No. 334 of 2002. Learned single Judge dismissed the said M.C.A. by an order dated 20.3.2003.

2.3 Thereafter, Special Civil Application No. 1772 of 2001 filed by the petitioner also came to be disposed off by judgment dated 6.4.2011.

2.4 The respondents-workers thereafter filed Recovery Application No. 18 of 2012 under the provisions of Section 33C(1) and 33C(3) of Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The respondents-workers also filed an application for appointment of the Court Commissioner which was allowed and the Court Commissioner submitted his report on 10.7.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner filed written statement Exh.19 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Recovery Application. Labour Court, Ahmedabad by impugned order dated 5.12.2014 allowed the recovery application whereby the petitioner is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,81,918/- to respondent No. 1, Rs. 1,73,641/- to respondent No. 2 and Rs. 3,49,319/- to respondent No. 3. The aforesaid amount is not paid by the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents-workers have moved the Labour Court for issuance of recovery certificate as per the order dated 5.12.2014. The Labour Court has, therefore, issued the notice dated 13.2.2015 to the petitioner and therefore, at this stage, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 5.12.2014."

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.R. Joshi for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. T.R. Mishra for the respondents.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is bad, illegal, perverse, arbitrary and, therefore, the same be quashed and set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi would mainly contend that the Labour Court passed an award on 30.11.2000 in Reference (IT) No. 75 of 1997, against which the petitioner filed Special Civil Application before this Court. This Court admitted the petition, however, no stay was granted. Therefore, the respondents-workers filed Civil Application No. 334 of 2002. The said application came to be allowed on 18.2.2002. Thus, there was no stay against the award passed by the Tribunal. However, the respondents-workers filed recovery application under Section 33C(1) for the year 2012. Such type of application is required to be filed within a period of one year from the date on which t