ORDER : S. Abdul Nazeer, J. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the award in I.D. No. 200/2010 at Annexure T dated 4.6.2012 whereby the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, has set aside the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.6.2003. 2. The respondent has been working as a driver in the establishment of the petitioner-Corporation. Disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and it was alleged that while he was driving the bus bearing registration No. KA-01/F-6316 on route Bangalore to Chittoor, dashed against a person and caused the accident. The Disciplinary Authority found that workman is guilty of misconduct. He was imposed with a punishment of withholding of ensuing two annual increments with cumulative effect. He raised a dispute through the Union on 20.6.2008. Since the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Tribunal to consider the following points: "(1) Is the workman Sri Rameshbabu, driver represented by General Secretary, Sirur Park Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore, justified in raising the dispute regarding punishment order passed by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Central Division, K.H. Road, Bangalore after lapse of five years? (2) If so, is the management, namely, Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Central Division, K.H. Road, Bangalore justified in imposing the punishment of withholding of two ensuing annual increments with cumulative effect under Order No. KST/BCD/Traffic: 6S:1217:03-04 dated 26.6.2003 on the workman Sri Rameshbabu, Driver, represented by General Secretary, AITUC, Sirur Park Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore?" 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed a claim statement. The parties have let in their evidence. The Tribunal has held that the enquiry held by the Corporation is fair and proper. As stated above, the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Corporation submits that there is a long delay of five years in raising the dispute. One of the points of dispute referred is in relation to delay in seeking the reference. The workman has contended that he had filed an appeal in the form of a representation before the appellate authority challenging the order of punishment as per Ex. W1. This is a concocted document. No such representation has been filed by the workman. She submits that the representation said to have been filed by the workman on 10.5.2003 is before the Chief Law Officer of the Corporation. W1. This is a concocted document. No such representation has been filed by the workman. She submits that the representation said to have been filed by the workman on 10.5.2003 is before the Chief Law Officer of the Corporation. The appellate authority during the said period was not the Chief Law Officer. In fact, the Chief Law Officer was made the appellate authority from 6.4.2004. The respondent has only produced a xerox copy of the alleged representation. The representation does not bear the seal of the office concerned. On the basis of the representation said to have been filed by the respondent, the Tribunal has condoned the delay and laches. It is argued that the workman has not come to the Court with clean hands. Had the workman filed the representation on 10.8.2003, he would have certainly pursued the same. He would not have slept over the matter for a period of five years for raising the dispute. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-workman submits that the delay has been properly explained by the workman before the Tribunal. The workman had filed a representation/appeal challenging the order of punishment as per Ex. W1. The award of the Tribunal does not call for interference. He further submits that the respondent-workman has a good case on merits. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the question for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in condoning the delay of five years in raising the dispute from the date of the order of punishment? 7. The contention of the workman is that after, the order of dismissal dated 26.6.2003, he filed an appeal/representation as per Ex. W1. He raised a dispute on 20.6.2008. Thus, there is a delay of five years in raising the dispute. One of the points referred to the Tribunal by the Government is in relation to delay of five years in raising the dispute. The workman has produced the representation at Ex. W1 dated 10.8.2003 addressed to the Chief Law Officer and appellate authority, Bangalore Central Office. It is not in dispute that the Chief Law Officer was made the appellate authority only on 6.4.2004 Therefore, question of filing an appeal/representation on 10.8.2003 before the Chief Law Officer does not arise. Had he filed the appeal/representation as per Ex. W1 on 10.8.2003, he would have certainly pursued the matter. It is not in dispute that the Chief Law Officer was made the appellate authority only on 6.4.2004 Therefore, question of filing an appeal/representation on 10.8.2003 before the Chief Law Officer does not arise. Had he filed the appeal/representation as per Ex. W1 on 10.8.2003, he would have certainly pursued the matter. He would not have slept over the matter for five years. The dispute was raised after a long lapse of five years. A perusal of Ex. W1 shows that it does not contain the seal of the office in which it has been filed. It appears that the respondent has not approached the Tribunal with clean: hands. 8. It is settled that delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In the absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation, a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act cannot be exercised any point of time and revive the matters, which had since been settled. If on account of the delay the dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. 9. In The Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty and Others, AIR 2000 SC 839 , the Apex court has held that power u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be exercised at any point of time and revive the matters which had since been settled. A dispute, which is stale, could not be a subject matter of reference u/s 10 of the Act. 10. In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Ram, (2006) 5 SCC 433 , the Apex Court has held that it was for the workman to show that he had raised dispute within a reasonable time and that he was not responsible for delayed decision, if any, in the conciliation proceedings. 11. The Apex Court in Dharappa Vs. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1848 , has held that if on account of delay, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. It is held as under: "27. 11. The Apex Court in Dharappa Vs. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 1848 , has held that if on account of delay, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. It is held as under: "27. This Court while dealing with Section 10(1)(c) and (d) of the ID Act, has repeatedly held that though the Act does not provide a period of limitation for raising a dispute u/s 10(1)(c) or (d), if on account of day, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be rejected. It has also held that lapse of time results in losing the remedy arid the right as well." 12. I am of the view that the Tribunal was therefore not right in condoning the delay of five years in raising a dispute. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 200/2010 at Annexure 'J' dated 4.6.2012 is hereby quashed. No costs.