ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Corporation has approached this Court being aggrieved of the award dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner in Labour Case No. 23/1995 whereby the industrial dispute raised at the instance of the respondent workman Mani Ram was partly allowed and two out of the three orders imposing penalty upon him being Annexure-1 dated 9.1.1984 & Annexure-3 dated 27.3.1985 were modified. At the same time, the order Annexure-2 dated 7.2.1984 was set aside. 2. Mr. Dinesh Ojha, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that three separate enquiries were held and separate punishment orders were passed by the petitioner Corporation against the respondent workman subjecting him to stoppage of different periods of grade increments "with cumulative effect". These orders were challenged by the workman by raising a labour dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. 3. Learned Tribunal, passed the award dated 22.12.1998 whereby two of the orders (Annexure-1 dated 9.1.1984 and Annexure-3 dated 27.3.1985) were modified holding that the employer Corporation had no powers under law to impose penalty of withholding of grade increments "with cumulative effect" and thus the cumulative effect of the penalties was struck down. The third order imposing penalty by Annexure-2 dated 7.2.1984 was quashed in entirety. He urges that the orders imposing penalty were passed way back in the year 1984-85. The respondent workman did not challenge the same for almost 11 years and the labour dispute came to be instituted in the year 1995. The Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the Corporation has no powers to impose the punishment of withholding grade increments "with cumulative effect". In support of this contention, he relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Fateh Singh Jhajaria v. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors. being D.B.S.A.W. No. 282/2003 decided on 23.9.2004 and urges that the impugned award is bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Dinesh Ojha. He submits that the orders imposing penalty were laconic and non speaking and the same were passed without considering the defence of the workman. He further submits that the inquiry proceedings were absolutely illegal and perfunctory. 4. Per contra Mr. Deepak Nehra, learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Mr. Dinesh Ojha. He submits that the orders imposing penalty were laconic and non speaking and the same were passed without considering the defence of the workman. He further submits that the inquiry proceedings were absolutely illegal and perfunctory. He further urges that in view of the law which existed then, as laid down by this Court in the case of R.S.R.T.C. v. Inder Singh reported in 1998 Lab. I.C. 1129, the Corporation was not empowered to impose punishment of withholding of grade increments with cumulative effect upon its employees. He thus submits that the impugned award cannot be interfered with on the basis of subsequent view taken by the Division Bench in Fateh Singh's case (supra). 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material on record. 6. So far as the order imposing penalty Annexure-2 dated 7.2.1984 is concerned, the same appears to have been passed without holding any enquiry and thus the Tribunal was perfectly justified in quashing and setting aside the same. However, as regards the remaining two orders Annexure-1 dated 9.1.1984 and Annexure-3 dated 27.3.1985, the petitioner himself gave up the challenge to the validity of the enquiry proceedings as noticed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. Thus, the only question which remains alive for Court's consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment on the ground that the regulations did not provide for penalty of withholding of grade increments "with cumulative effect". The said question was examined in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Fateh Singh Jhajaria (supra) wherein relying on the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Krisha Dutta Sharma v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1987(1)-346 the Hon'ble Division Bench went on to hold that passing an order of penalty in the above nature is well within the domain of the Corporation. 7. 7. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the firm opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court in the impugned award questioning the competence of the Corporation while subjecting the employee to penalty of stoppage of grade increments "with cumulative effect" is per-se illegal and has to be struck down. 8. Consequently, the impugned award dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bikaner is quashed and set aside to the extent the Tribunal interfered in the orders imposing penalty of stoppage of grade increments upon the petitioner vide Annexure-1 dated 9.1.1984 and the order Annexure-3 dated 27.3.1985. Both the orders are restored. Rest of the award whereby order Annexure-2 dated 7.2.1984 was quashed and set aside is maintained. The writ petition is partly allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.