JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the Labour Court, in Recovery Application No. 8/2007, whereby the Labour Court has rejected the said application. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Conductor with the respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted from time to time to various posts and lastly he was promoted to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector in the year 1996. The petitioner retired from the service w.e.f. 01.08.2002. As the respondent had not paid the legal dues of the petitioner, the petitioner preferred Recovery Application No. 2671/1985 before the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The Labour Court, Ahmedabad vide order dated 27.02.2002 allowed the said application and directed the respondent to pay Rs. 2,63,0111.71 paise towards unpaid legal dues. Pursuant to the order passed by the Labour Court, the respondent from time to time paid other legal dues, except the dues accrued by the order passed by the Labour Court. Being aggrieved by the said action of the respondent, the petitioner u/s/ 33(C)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, preferred Recovery Application No. 8/2007 before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide order dated 27.05.2010 rejected the said application. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record. From the record it transpires that the petitioner has preferred application under section 33(C)(1) of the I.D. Act on 04.01.2007. However, as per the provisions of Section 33(C)(1) of the I.D. Act, the application is required to be filed within a period of one year. In the present case, the petitioner had filed the application after a period of more than four years. Apart from that delay condonation application is filed on 13.09.2007. 4. Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioner had filed the application beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under section 33(C)(1) of the Act, the Labour Court was completely justified in passing the impugned order. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived at by the Labour Court and hence, do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 5. Consequently, the petition is dismissed summarily. Petition rejected.