K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Doshi, learned advocate for Mr. Majumdar learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has brought under challenge order dated 6.2.2007 passed by learned labour Court, Ahmedabad whereby the learned labour Court rejected the Recovery Application filed by present petitioner by invoking provisions under Section 33(C-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [hereinafter referred to as the "Act"].

3. So far as the factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record of present petition that the petitioner herein filed an application under Section 33(C-2) of the Act and raised claim/demand for sum of Rs. 2,65,500/- against present respondent. The said application was registered as Recovery Application No. 378 of 2006.

3.1. Upon receipt of the notice from the learned Court with regard to the proceedings of the said recovery application, the original opponent in the application (i.e. present respondent) filed application Exh. 7 and raised preliminary objection against maintainability of the said recovery application wherein original opponent contended, inter alia, that the claimant does not have any pre-existing right in respect of the amount demanded in the recovery application and that therefore the application is not maintainable.

3.2. The respondent herein (i.e. original opponent in recovery application) also opposed maintainability of the application on the ground that it was filed after inordinate delay of 17 years and that therefore, the application should not be entertained.

3.3. Original opponent in said recovery application opposed maintainability of the application on the ground that applicant is not and was never its workman and actually father of the applicant was its workman and the person who filed the application (the applicant for sake of convenience) was never employed by it and that therefore, he had no right in law to file the recovery application against the respondent.

3.4. The respondent also opposed the application and claim made by the applicant on merits and asserted in the reply before the learned Labour Court that the respondent did not owe any amount to the claimant - applicant and the application was filed with malafide intention of unjustifiably extracting amount from the respondent. The respondent also denied that the workman i.e. father of the applicant was entitled for salary for overtime at the rate of 4 hours of overtime work every day and it was also denied that the applicant's father was retrenched.

3.5. The learned Labour Court adjudicated the recovery application and vide order dated 6.2.2007, the learned Labour Court rejected the application. The petitioner - applicant is aggrieved by the said order dated 6.2.2007. Hence present petition.

3.6. Learned advocate for the petitioner assailed the order dated 6.2.2007 and submitted that the learned Labour Court committed error in allowing the application Exh. 7 preferred by the employer whereby the employer raised preliminary objection against maintainability of the recovery application. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court erred in accepting the employer's contention that the learned Labour Court can entertain recovery application in respect of only pre-existing right. So as to support his submission, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of The Central Bank of India Ltd. v. P.S. Rajagopalan etc., AIR 1964 SC 743 and the decision in case of Rameshwar Manjhi (Deceased) through his son Lakhiram Manjhi v. Management of Sangramgarh Colliery & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1176.

4. So far as the factual backdrop is concerned, it has emerged from the record that the applicant alleged that his father was illegally retrenched and that at the time of illegal retrenc