D. N. PATEL, J. ( 1 ) RULE Learned Counsel Mr. K. M. Paul waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1971 and 1975 for stoppage of increments for two years, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute in the year 2000, i. e. nearly after l/4th of century. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the order dated 6th August, 1971, as well as the order dated 4th January, 1975, the said orders were never challenged by the respondent before any competent Court of law. There are several defaults of the respondent-workman who was a conductor. There is a detailed list of defaults of the said conductor which was enlisted with the reply of statement of claim which was presented before Industrial tribunal, Rajkot. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Industrial Tribunal, rajkot has allowed the Reference vide order dated 22nd June, 2004. Even the circular presented by the petitioner bearing No. 197 of 1969 to the effect that certain documents were to be destroyed after lapse of certain period. The case of the respondent in the year 2000 pertained to some orders passed by the petitioner in the years 1971 and 1975 and after 25 years, an industrial dispute was raised. The amount collected by the respondent-workman was not deposited with the petitioner-Corporation. There was an overwriting in the way bills. On the basis of those charges, two increments were stopped much before the reference was filed. It was brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal, rajkot that in view of the aforesaid circular, the petitioner-Corporation did not have record of the papers which connect the. misconduct of the respondent- workman in the order passed by the petitioner. Suffice it was for the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot that after a period of more than 25 years, the industrial dispute was raised, and therefore, it ought to have rejected the same. Law helps those who are vigilant. No action was ever taken by the respondent-workman against the so-called excessively, exorbitant and illegal orders passed by the petitioner. Suffice it was for the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot that after a period of more than 25 years, the industrial dispute was raised, and therefore, it ought to have rejected the same. Law helps those who are vigilant. No action was ever taken by the respondent-workman against the so-called excessively, exorbitant and illegal orders passed by the petitioner. In fact, the respondent-workman has accepted the orders passed by the petitioner, first dated 6th August, 1971 and second dated 4th January, 1975 for 25 long years. The respondent-workman continued in service despite those two orders. This long duration and willingly acceptance of the orders by the respondent, permits not to allow the Reference by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Tribunal, and hence, the order dated 22nd June, 2004 in Reference (I. T.) No. 106 of 2000 deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman who has mainly submitted that once Reference is made under Sec. 10 of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947, it is incumbent upon the Industrial Tribunal to decide the same. Once, a Reference is made, there is no way left out with the Industrial tribunal, but to decide it on merits. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman that there is no error, much less an error on the face of record, committed by the Industrial Tribunal in allowing the Reference. There is no perversity in the said order nor there is want of jurisdiction. Hence, this Court may not entertain this petition filed by the petitioner-Corporation. In support of his arguments, the learned Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society ltd. and Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1351 and judgment of this Court in the case of Natwarlal Amrutlal Shah v. Employees State Insurance Scheme, reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2474 . and Anr. , reported in AIR 1999 SC 1351 and judgment of this Court in the case of Natwarlal Amrutlal Shah v. Employees State Insurance Scheme, reported in 2001 (3) GLR 2474 . ( 4 ) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the order dated 22nd June, 2004 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in reference (I. T.) No. 106 of 2002 is erroneous, bad in law, upsets the facts, settled for 25 years and has resulted into miscarriage of justice, and therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside for the following reasons : (i) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the industrial dispute raised by the workman was mainly because of two orders passed by the petitioner-Corporation, on 6th August, 1971 and 14th January, 1975. The dispute was raised in the year 2000. There is a long gap of more than 25 years. Apart from this aspect of the matter, it is also brought to the notice of the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot that the respondent- workman, a conductor, has committed several defaults. The amounts recovered from the passengers by way of fare have not been deposited with the petitioner, and similarly, third aspect of the matter is that there is a circular of maintenance and preservation of official records bearing no. 197 of 1969 dated 13-6-1969 at Exh. 19 as to disposal of old documents lying in the office of the petitioner, and hence, after several years, if any dispute is raised, there is no evidence with the petitioner- corporation. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the Industrial Tribunal. The cumulative effect of all the aforesaid three factors results into perversity of the order, and therefore, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot, deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also not appreciated by the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot that the first order passed by the petitioner-Corporation was dated 6th August, 1971 and another order was passed on 4th January, 1975. For approximately 25 long years, the orders have been accepted by the respondent-workman. Never ever before, any dispute has been raised. It is also not appreciated by the Industrial tribunal, Rajkot that the first order passed by the petitioner-Corporation was dated 6th August, 1971 and another order was passed on 4th January, 1975. For approximately 25 long years, the orders have been accepted by the respondent-workman. Never ever before, any dispute has been raised. The workman having accepted the said two orders passed by the petitioner-Corporation for a considerable long period of about 25 years, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that one is not accepting such type of orders just for nothing. The respondent- workman must have been satisfied by those two orders and said satisfaction of the respondent-workman has continued for a long period of almost 1/4th of century. Overnight, it cannot convert into a dissatisfaction. After taking full advantage of those two orders, (though misconduct committed by respondent-conductor, in 1971 and in 1975, after imposing some penalty, he was continued in the services), now after 25 years, the reference initiated at the behest of respondent- workman ought not to have allowed by the Industrial Tribunal. Such type of aspect of the matter ought to have been appreciated by the industrial Tribunal. If any proposition of fact is accepted, for much longer period like the present one, it ought not to have been altered by the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. There the facts were settled since very long period. Evidence may not be available even with a person who has passed the order before 25 years. Long lapse of time permits disposal of papers even by the petitioner-Corporation. The cumulative effect of all the aforesaid facts has resulted into miscarriage of justice by the order dated 22nd June, 2004 in Reference (I. T.) No. 160 of 2000. Therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Ordinarily, delay in making Reference or in filing a petition or in deciding the case is not a factor which should weigh with the Court, but there is a vast difference between ordinary delay in making a reference and voluntary acceptance of the aforesaid two orders of 1971 and 1975 for more than approximately 25 long years by the respondent workman. There is no delay in making the reference, but there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute. (ii) The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman are not helpful to the respondent-workman. There is no delay in making the reference, but there is a delay in raising the industrial dispute. (ii) The judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the respondent-workman are not helpful to the respondent-workman. Law helps those who are vigilant and not to those who are lethargic and dormant. (iii) Even on merits, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is erroneous. In the year 1971, the charge was that after recovering the fare from five passengers, the tickets were not issued and from nine passengers, neither fare was collected nor tickets were issued by the petitioner. Similar was the nature of charge for the year 1975 as per Paras 11 and 12 of the award. As per latest trend of judgments like (i) JT 2004 (8) SC 103 (Divisional Controller, K. S. R. T. C. (N. W. K. R. T. C.) v. A. T. Mane), (ii) JT 2004 (8) SC 113 (Regional manager, Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Sohan Lai), (iii) 2003 (3) SCC 605 (Regional Manager, U. P. S. R. T. C. , Etawah v. Hotilal), (iv) 2001 (2) SCC 574 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. B. S. Hullikatti), (v) 2000 (7) SCC 517 (Janatha Bazar (South Kanara central Co-op. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Secretary, Sahakari Naukarara sangha) and (vi) 1993 (1) GLR 302 (G. S. R. T. C. v. Kachraji Motiji parmar), the termination of services of conductors for such misconducts have been approved by the Honble Supreme Court. In the present case, though less punishment of stoppage of increments was passed, the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot has interfered with the quantum of punishment which is an impermissible error on the part of the Tribunal, Rajkot. In fact, punishments awarded vide two orders in 1971 and 1975, are true, correct and adequate looking to misconduct of the respondent and are not shockingly disproportionate. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid factual as well as legal position, in my opinion, the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I. T.) No. 160 of 2000 is perverse, illegal and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. As a result, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. The order dated 22nd June, 2004 in reference (I. T.) No. 160 of 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. As a result, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. The order dated 22nd June, 2004 in reference (I. T.) No. 160 of 2000 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .