ORDER Ravi V. Malimath, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though he had given an undertaking that he shall make a payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent by 27.04.2015, he is unable to do so. Therefore, he pleads that he may be heard on merits. Heard learned counsels on merits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent was employed with the petitioner-Corporation in the year 1972 as a Conductor. When he was on duty from Muddebihal to Bellary, the bus was checked. It was found that he had not issued tickets and collected the revenue from certain passengers. An enquiry was initiated. Articles of charge were issued. He was imposed with the punishment of reducing the pay scale to the minimum. In the interregnum, he died. His legal representatives namely his wife and children sought for a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. By the impugned award, the reference was partly accepted. The order of punishment was set aside. The respondent therein was directed to re-fix the salary, to pay arrears and various consequential reliefs. Aggrieved by the same, the Corporation has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That there is a delay of almost 17 years in raising the dispute. Hence, the Reference Court committed an error in allowing the reference. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that no error has been committed by the Labour Court that calls for interference. 5. So far as delay is concerned, the material on record would show that the order of punishment was dated 03.05.1989 and the workman died on 11.09.2007. He left behind his wife and children. They cannot be expected to make a reference the moment the sole bread winner of the family died. Under these circumstances, the delay in making the reference cannot be said to be fatal, since the workman died and it was only the wife and children who survived. 6. So far as merits is concerned, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the material on record. It came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is improper. Under these circumstances, the delay in making the reference cannot be said to be fatal, since the workman died and it was only the wife and children who survived. 6. So far as merits is concerned, the Labour Court has rightly appreciated the material on record. It came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is improper. That the management has failed to establish that on what date, place and time the claimant tried to pilfer the revenue of the Corporation. There was no evidence supporting the charge against the workman. Hence, the Labour Court partly set aside the punishment order. The order of punishment was set aside and the Corporation was directed to fix the salary w.e.f. 03.05.1989 and to pay arrears of increment including consequential benefits from the date of the order namely 03.05.1989 to 11.09.2007 the date of his death along with interest at 10% and other orders. 7. The Labour Court has rightly held that the question of delay cannot prevent the Labour Court to exercise its jurisdiction. The delay has been caused because of the death of the sole bread winner of the family. So far as merits, the petitioner-Corporation has not led in any material in support of their case. Under these circumstances, I find no good ground to interfere with the well considered order of the Labour Court. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The compliance of the impugned order to be made within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule discharged.