K.M. Thaker, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. In present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 19.2.2007 passed by learned Labour Court in Recovery Application No. 126 of 2001 whereby learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 50,539.50 to the claimant with interest @ 6% from the date of application.

3. So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and submissions of learned advocates for the petitioner and respondent that the respondent herein was employee of the petitioner i.e. Gujarat Mineral and Development Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short). While the respondent was in service with the corporation, the corporation had introduced Voluntary Retirement Scheme ('VRS' for short). The respondent herein opted for VRS and tendered his resignation and sought benefit of said scheme. The resignation tendered by the respondent in response to VRS was accepted by the corporation and he was granted benefit under VRS. Sometime after he was relieved from service upon finalization and implementation of VRS qua respondent, he raised demand against the corporation on the ground that the corporation had not calculated amount payable under VRS in accordance with terms of VRS and consequently corporation paid less amount to him than what was payable as per terms of VRS. On such basis the claimant demanded balance amount from the corporation. The corporation declined to pay any other amount to the claimant on the ground that amount payable in accordance with terms of the VRS is already paid and any other amount is not payable under the terms of VRS. In this background the respondent herein filed Recovery Application under Section 33(C-2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.D. Act") wherein he contended that according to terms of VRS the corporation should have paid Rs. 2,03,806.50 whereas corporation paid Rs. 1,46,067/- and that therefore he is entitled to receive further amount payable in accordance with terms of VRS. With such allegations and on the said premise the respondent herein claimed Rs. 57,739.50. The respondent filed said Recovery Application somewhere in October 2001.

3.1 The corporation opposed the application on various grounds including the ground that the recovery application is not maintainable and that the application is barred by limitation and therefore application does not deserve to entertained and that the claimant has not disclosed correct and complete facts and therefore, application is not maintainable. The corporation also contended that the claimant accepted VRS and that therefore employer - employee relationship does not exist between the parties and consequently the claimant is not entitled to file recovery application under Section 33(C-2) of I.D. Act and that therefore the application is not maintainable.

3.2 Learned Labour Court considered rival submissions and material on record and after detailed and proper consideration learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the application is maintainable and the claimant is entitled to receive Rs. 50,539.50 and that therefore learned Labour Court passed award with abovementioned directions.

4. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner corporation submitted that the impugned order is unjust and arbitrary and contrary to evidence on record and impugned order therefore, deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate that the claimant had suppressed material facts and that therefore application should not have been entertained. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the claimant had filed application after about 5 years and in view of said delay the application was barred and therefore not maintainable and learned Labour Court should have rejected the application on said ground. He submitted that