Judgment : 1. A driver of the respondent-Road Transport Corporation, aggrieved by the award dated 1-9-2008 in ID. No. 80 of 2005 of the Industrial Tribunal at Bangalore, rejecting the reference of the State Government, has presented this petition. 2. The petitioner suffered the following three orders of punishment- (a) Order dated 21-5-2001 reducing the basic pay by one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect; (b) Order dated 31-7-2002 reducing the basic pay by one annual increment stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 649/- in two equal installments to wands loss caused to the Corporation. (c) Orders dated 24-10-2002 reducing the basic pay by one annual increment for a period of two years without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 5,000/- in 10 installments. 3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the orders, initiated conciliation proceedings during the year 2005 whence the State Government, by order dated 4-4-2005 referred the industrial dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication, exercising jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Tribunal registered the reference as I.D. No. 80 of 2005 whence the petitioner arraigned as first party, filed a claim statement to which the respondent arraigned as the 2nd party, entered appearance, resisted the claim by filing statement of objections. The parties entered trial whence two witnesses for the respondent-Corporation were examined and five documents marked while the petitioner was examined as W.W. 1 and eight documents marked in evidence. At the stage of further evidence, it appears that the respondent-Management filed a memo to reject the reference since a single reference in respect of multiple punishment orders was bad in law. At that stage, the petitioner made a submission on 13-8-2008 stating that he does not press the challenge to the punishment order dated 31-7-2002 and in that regard, filed a memo. The Labour Court, having regard to the material on record, held that the challenge to the order dated 21-5-2001 suffered from delay and latches of more than four years and that the 1st party has not satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay. At the same time, on the merits, the Labour Court did not find justification to interfere with the said order. 4. With regard to the second order dated 31-7-2002, since the petitioner had withdrawn the challenge, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order. At the same time, on the merits, the Labour Court did not find justification to interfere with the said order. 4. With regard to the second order dated 31-7-2002, since the petitioner had withdrawn the challenge, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order. As regards the order dated 24-10-2002, the Tribunal having noticed that there being no dispute that the vehicle belonging to the Corporation, met with an accident and suffered damages, the petitioner, without authority of his employer, entered into a private negotiation and a compromise Annexure-M5 coupled with the fact that the petitioner had not brought to the notice of the authority that the vehicle had suffered damages in an accident, held that the charges were proved and the employer was justified in imposing the punishment by the award impugned. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and examined the award Annexure-A, in my considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal and hence, I decline to interfere with the award. Writ petition is without merit and is accordingly, rejected.