ORDER : A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The respondent is an employee of the petitioner and was on duty on 12.12.1998 in the bus plying on route Chitradurga to Nayakanahatti. The bus was checked at Kandayyana Koppala and it was found that the respondent had failed to issue tickets to four passengers travelling from Upparahatti to Nayakanahatti (stage No.6 to 8). It was also found that he had not issued tickets to 18 luggage units and 18 Rupees was not collected and the said luggage consisted of 8 bags of groundnuts being carried from Upparahatti to Nayakanahatti. The workman had completed the entry in the waybill but had not taken into account sale of 2 tickets of 5 Rupees denomination and had also not taken into account the sale of 8 tickets of 1 Rupee denomination and had not entered the sale of 1 Rupee tickets in the waybill. Upon receipt of the report of the checking squad Articles of Charge was issued on 19.02.2000 to the respondent. No disciplinary enquiry was conducted. The respondent was imposed with an order of punishment of reduction of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 04.05.2000. At the behest of the workman, Government of Karnataka made a reference on 12.12.2008, under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') to the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli for adjudication of the dispute. In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings and 5 issues were raised. For the Management, one Krishnaji Thavaru Naik was examined as MW-1 and Exs. M1 to M9 were marked. The workman did not adduce any evidence - oral or documentary. Upon hearing of the arguments and appreciation of the record, the Tribunal in its Order/Award dated 22.04.2013 as at Annexure-B, held as follows: "11 Thus, upon appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record it becomes clear that the misconduct attributed stands established and accordingly I hold that the misconduct attributed against the workman stands established." 2. Despite the said finding, the Tribunal having posed a question as to whether the punishment imposed by the second party-Management is legal and justified?, by relying upon the decision in Hubert Lobo v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, reported in 1997(4) KLJ 524, held that the punishment imposed is illegal. Despite the said finding, the Tribunal having posed a question as to whether the punishment imposed by the second party-Management is legal and justified?, by relying upon the decision in Hubert Lobo v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mangalore, reported in 1997(4) KLJ 524, held that the punishment imposed is illegal. As a consequence, the reference was allowed and the impugned order of punishment was set aside and the workman was held entitled to monetary benefits. Assailing the said Award, this writ petition was filed by the Management. 3. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned advocate, firstly contended that there is error apparent on the face of the impugned Award and the same suffers from severe infirmity. She submitted that the misconduct committed by the workman with regard to non-issuance of tickets despite collection of fare having stood established before the Tribunal and as the misconduct related to misappropriation of the revenue of the Corporation, the punishment imposed by the Corporation being not an extreme punishment, interference with the quantum of punishment by the Tribunal is opposed to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corpn. Ltd. & others, (2006) 5 SCC 201 . Secondly, Section 11-A of the Act has no application as the punishment imposed on the workman was not one of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court having held in the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union, that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of imposing a milder punishment as the power under Section 11-A is attracted only to cases of dismissal, discharge or retrenchment, the impugned Award to the extent of setting aside the punishment is illegal. Thirdly, there being inordinate delay and laches on the part of the workman in questioning the order of punishment after lapse of eight years, the Tribunal is unjustified in allowing the reference in ignorance of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of (i) Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.R. Madhavankutty and others, AIR 2006 SC 896 and (ii) State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar (2009) 13 SCC 746 . Learned counsel concluded that the impugned Award setting aside the punishment imposed by the management being arbitrary and perverse is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri. Learned counsel concluded that the impugned Award setting aside the punishment imposed by the management being arbitrary and perverse is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri. M.V. Hiremath, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand made submissions in support of the Award passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that disciplinary enquiry having not been conducted in pursuance of the Articles of Charge issued on 19.02.2000, the imposition of punishment vide order dated 04.05.2000 being illegal, the Tribunal is justified in relying upon the decision in Hubert Lobo (1997 (4) KLJ 524) (supra) and in allowing the reference. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference with the award passed by the Tribunal is called for. 5. Perused the record and considered the rival contentions. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned Award setting aside the punishment imposed by the management is illegal? 6. Petitioner imposed the punishment of withholding one ensuing annual increment with cumulative effect on 04.05.2000. Workman has approached the Government belatedly, as reference was made on 12.12.2008. There is merit in the contention of Smt. H.R. Renuka that there is delay and laches on the part of the workman in seeking adjudication of the dispute. Be that as it may. 7. The management has examined a witness through whom Exs.M1 to M9 were marked. The workman has not adduced any evidence before the Tribunal. It is on appreciation of the said evidence, the Tribunal has held that the misconduct attributed against the workman as established. Even though the misconduct as alleged was held as established, by making reference to the decision in the case of Hubert Lobo (supra), the punishment imposed was held as illegal and was set aside. 8. The facts appearing in the case of Hubert Lobo related to imposition of a punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. While deciding the said case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and others, reported in (1973) 1 LLJ 278 has not been kept in view. While deciding the said case, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Management and others, reported in (1973) 1 LLJ 278 has not been kept in view. Said decision of the Apex Court makes it clear that the Management can lead evidence for the first time over the charges before the Labour Court and if such evidence is found to be credible and the misconduct proved, the Labour Court would be denuded of its jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment, except in cases of dismissal or termination from service, is found to be harsh or suffering from victimization i.e., by invoking the power vested in the Labour Court/Tribunal under Section 11-A of the Act. Hence, the Tribunal has committed error in relying upon Hubert Lobo's case by ignoring the binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India rendered by the Apex Court in the case of The Workmen of M/s. Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India (Pvt.) Ltd. 9. In the case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union, Apex Court has held that Section 11-A of the Act is only applicable in cases of dismissal or discharge or retrenchment of workman from service. 10. This Court in the case of B.M.T.C., Rep. by its Chief Law Officer v. BMTC and State Transport Noukarara Sangha, ILR 2011 Kar 2037, has held that Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 11-A of the Act and substitute the punishment as the misconduct alleged against the workman was found established. 11. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal against the workman with regard to the proof of misconduct is concerned is not under challenge. There being categorical finding by the Tribunal itself, with reference to the evidence of MW-1 and exhibits M1 to M9, the Tribunal has committed illegality in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Management vide order dated 04.05.2000. The impugned Award to the extent of interfering with the punishment is arbitrary and illegal. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli is quashed. As a consequence, the punishment imposed on the respondent vide order dated 04.05.2000 of the petitioner stands restored. No costs.