JUDGMENT K.L. Manjunath, J. 1. The concurrent findings of the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge passed in I.D. No. 116 of 2007, dated 9-4-2010 and in W.P. No. 16168 of 2011, dated 6-1-2012 are called in question in this appeal. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. The undisputed facts in this appeal are as hereunder: The respondent is working as a driver in the appellant-establishment. On 11-5-1997 the respondent was driving a bus bearing No. KA-01-F-461 on the route from Shivajinagar to Vijayanagar, at about 7:00 p.m. when he was moving the bus near the entrance of south gate at Shivajinagar Bus Stand, he had taken turn towards petrol bunk, a lady made an attempt to board the running bus. As a result of which, she fell down and she died due to the rear wheel ran over her. Charge-sheet was filed against the respondent by the police for the offence punishable under Sections 279,337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the pendency of the criminal case, the article of charges was also served upon the respondent. He denied the allegation that on account of negligence of his driving the accident has occurred. However, the enquiry report was filed against him and he was punished by withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect, by order of the appellant dated 31-8-1999. Later, the respondent was acquitted in the Criminal Court. 3. Challenging the order of punishment, a dispute was raised under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in I.D. No. 116 of 2007. 4. The appellant raised a contention that the dispute raised by the respondent was barred by limitation and on account of delay and latches, the Corporation requested the labour Court to reject the dispute and also contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. 5. On recording the evidence, the Tribunal gave a finding that only on account of delay and latches justice shall not be denied to the respondent. On facts, the labour Court gave a finding that the respondent did not cause accident. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside. 6. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, W.P. No. 16168 of 2011 came to be filed before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed by order dated 6-1-2012. 7. On facts, the labour Court gave a finding that the respondent did not cause accident. Accordingly, the order of dismissal was set aside. 6. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, W.P. No. 16168 of 2011 came to be filed before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed by order dated 6-1-2012. 7. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the findings of the Tribunal, labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge on the question of delay and latches is perverse and also contends that no Court could have interfered with the order of punishment six years from the date of punishment. She further contends that the reasons for acquittal by the Magistrate Court could be different from the reasons for levying punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, she requests the Court to allow the appeal. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent supporting the orders of the labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge requests the Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. Having heard the Counsel for the parties, we are required to consider any error committed by the learned Single Judge in confirming the order of the labour Court and whether the labour Court has committed any illegality in entertaining the dispute six years after the punishment. 10. At the outset, it is not in dispute that an old lady died while she was boarding the running bus. In the said circumstances, if an accident is caused, it cannot be solely attributable to the respondent. The accident has taken place at about 7:00 p.m. in the evening in the bus stand of Shivajinagar. When the driver was driving the bus, it was the duty of the conductor not to allow any passenger to board the bus. It is for the management that the conductor has not been examined. The Criminal Court has also acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him. 11. The appellant has mainly relied upon that the labour Court was required to look into the principles of res ipsa loquitur, but the findings of the labour Court and the learned Single Judge clearly revealed that the accident has occurred on account of negligence of the victim, since she made an attempt to board the running bus. 11. The appellant has mainly relied upon that the labour Court was required to look into the principles of res ipsa loquitur, but the findings of the labour Court and the learned Single Judge clearly revealed that the accident has occurred on account of negligence of the victim, since she made an attempt to board the running bus. As rightly pointed out by the labour Court and the learned Single Judge only on account of delay the respondent shall not be punished and injustice would be caused to the respondent for not fault of him. Imposing penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect will have far-reaching consequence on the respondent and it will also affect the consequential benefits. Hence, there is no error committed by the learned Single Judge or illegality committed by the labour Court in granting relief to the respondent. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.