JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, a challenge is made to the award dated 14th May, 2015, where by reference was answered in favour of the respondent-employee. 2. It is a case where the respondent-employee was charge sheeted with the allegation that while discharging the duties on the post of Driver, operated the bus without proper care. On account of his negligence, one tire of the bus was got flat out of a cut. The tire could not be repaired. After enquiry, he was punished with the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. On a dispute, reference was made and has been answered in favour of respondent employee. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the dispute was raised after unexplained delay of 16 years. On the aforesaid ground itself, reference should have been answered adverse to the respondent-employee. Learned Industrial Tribunal failed to consider this aspect while passing award. 4. I have considered the submission made by the counsel and find that allegation against the respondent-employee itself does not show that he had misconducted in discharge of duties. The tire got flat and resulted in break down of the bus. The question would be as to whether it was on account of negligence on the part of respondent employee while discharging duties on the post of Driver. There is nothing on record to show the negligence. It is also a fact that enquiry conducted against the respondent-employee was found to be unfair by the Industrial Tribunal. In the aforesaid circumstances and when enquiry was not conducted before the Industrial Tribunal, no material remains against the respondent-employee to maintain the order of punishment. Looking to the fact aforesaid, an award was passed in favour of the respondent-employee. 5. The only question remains of delay. It is true that dispute was raised after delay of 16 years. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 does not provide any limitation. As per earlier view of the Apex Court, reference cannot be answered against the respondent employee on the ground of delay. The recent view is no doubt needs an explanation about the delay. Learned Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect and considering the misconduct and the punishment apart from unfair enquiry, intervention was made. As per earlier view of the Apex Court, reference cannot be answered against the respondent employee on the ground of delay. The recent view is no doubt needs an explanation about the delay. Learned Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect and considering the misconduct and the punishment apart from unfair enquiry, intervention was made. Looking to the exceptional circumstances, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned award.The writ petition so as stay application are accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******