JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by petitioner assailing award Ann. 3 dated 15th November, 2006 passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer whereby punishment inflicted upon respondent has been set aside on the premise that the inquiry officer has not found the charge proved in all the three respective charge sheets served upon him and without supplying note of disagreement and affording opportunity of hearing disciplinary authority held him guilty and punished with the penalty inflicted by three different orders and further directed that the respondent-employee will be entitled for consequential benefits flowing thereof. 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that respondent was punished after holding a regular inquiry vide orders dated 14th January, 1993, dated 29th July, 1993 & 1st July, 1995 and reference was made by the appropriate Government in December, 2002. Thus, there was a gross delay and despite specific plea being raised in the written statement and noticed by Tribunal but was not considered and the Labour Court has committed a manifest error in accepting reference under impugned award. Counsel further submits that regular inquiry was held in accordance with Standing Orders, 1965 and the inquiry officer's report was considered by the disciplinary authority and after taking into consideration the finding recorded therein, the disciplinary authority held respondent guilty based on the material which came on record and finally passed order of punishment. As such, no error was committed by the authority inflicting penalty upon respondent and this has not been properly appreciated by learned Tribunal in the right perspective. In support of his submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgment of apex court in Director, Food and Supplies v. Gurmit Singh, (2007) 5 SCC-727 . 3. Counsel for respondent, while supporting finding recorded by Tribunal, submits that once the inquiry officer has not found charge proved against him, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to first supply note of disagreement and only after affording opportunity of hearing, decision could have been taken by the disciplinary authority. 3. Counsel for respondent, while supporting finding recorded by Tribunal, submits that once the inquiry officer has not found charge proved against him, it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to first supply note of disagreement and only after affording opportunity of hearing, decision could have been taken by the disciplinary authority. As such, the procedure which was adopted by the disciplinary authority in holding him guilty and passing order of penalty are not legally sustainable and are in violation of principles of natural justice and so far as delay is concerned, counsel submits that no third party right intervened in the matter and he was throughout pursuing remedy available to him under law finally a reference was made by the appropriate Government and the matter has been finally adjudicated by Tribunal. 4. I have considered submissions of counsel for parties and perused the material on record. 5. This fact remained uncontroverted that all the three respective charge sheets which were served upon respondent, the inquiry officer has not found charge proved against respondent-delinquent and the disciplinary authority without supplying him note of disagreement straightway held him guilty and punished with the penalty by passing three different orders. Certainly, this action of the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice and this court finds no infirmity in the finding recorded by Tribunal in this regard. 6. The judgment (supra) on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where specific objection raised by the employer before Tribunal was that being petitioner not an 1 industry covered u/s. 20) of the Act and despite objection being raised it was not considered .by Tribunal while examining the dispute. At the same, it has been observed by apex court that delay also effect the maintainability of reference, but in the facts of instant case, delay could not be considered to be fatal, apart from it, when there was a manifest error committed by disciplinary authority in holding respondent-delinquent guilty without affording him a reasonable opportunity of hearing required under law. Even otherwise also there is no material on record placed even by petitioner to show that at what stage the respondent first file application before the conciliation officer raising dispute because that is the stage from which if all there was delay has to be considered. 7. Even otherwise also there is no material on record placed even by petitioner to show that at what stage the respondent first file application before the conciliation officer raising dispute because that is the stage from which if all there was delay has to be considered. 7. Taking note thereof, this court does not find substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed.Writ petition dismissed. *******