ORDER : B. Veerappa, J. The petitioner - Management filed the present writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order at Annexure-E dated 7.2.2012 made in I.D. No. 164/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli with respect to Issue No. 1 regarding fairness of domestic enquiry and also to quash the Award dated 8.11.2012 made in I.D. No. 164/2008 as per Annexure-F on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli. By the impugned Award, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment of reducing the basic pay of the respondent-workman by one incremental stage permanently, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority etc. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent/workman was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the respondent - Corporation. On 9.5.2000, while he was performing his duties, the bus was checked by the checking officials. During the course of check, it was found that the respondent had failed to issue 15 tickets of Rs. 3.50 each and not collected the fare amount from the passengers while transferring from Punabhagatta to Satur and not closed the stage entry at Stage No. 4. On the basis of the said report submitted by the checking officials, the Disciplinary Authority issued the articles of charge to the respondent. The respondent has submitted the reply denying the charges. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. The respondent participated in the proceedings. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report holding that the charges levelled against the respondent-workman were proved. Considering the entire material on record, the Disciplinary, Authority passed an order dated 9.1.2002 reducing one increment with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty. 3. Thereafter the respondent raised the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The claim statement was filed by the respondent-workman. The petitioner-Corporation also filed objections to the claim statement. The Labour Court after framing the preliminary issue with respect to the fairness of the domestic enquiry held that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereafter the parties were permitted to adduce evidence. The Management examined Mr. Basavaraj as MW.1 on its behalf and got marked 12 documents - Ex.M1 to Ex.M12. No witness is examined on behalf of the workman and no documents were got marked on his behalf. Thereafter the parties were permitted to adduce evidence. The Management examined Mr. Basavaraj as MW.1 on its behalf and got marked 12 documents - Ex.M1 to Ex.M12. No witness is examined on behalf of the workman and no documents were got marked on his behalf. The Tribunal cons allowed the reference petition and set aside the punishment imposed by the Management. Hence the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-Management. 4. The respondent though served is unrepresented. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Sri K.S. Abhijith, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Sri B.L. Sanjeev, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before the Enquiry Officer, the workman has admitted the charge as per Ex.M9. The same has not been properly considered by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the delay of six years in raising the dispute in the proper perspective. Absolutely no discussion is made by the Tribunal with regard to the delay before passing the impugned Award. He further contended that though the Petitioner-Management has taken specific contention in the objections to the claim statement that the workman already involved in 53 offences and he was kept under suspension and later the said order was revoked, the said aspect of the matter was not at all considered by the Tribunal. Though the domestic enquiry conducted was in accordance with law providing opportunity to the respondent, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. In spite of opportunity given to the workman before the Tribunal, the workman has not availed any opportunity to adduce evidence and produce the documents. In order to substantiate the charge, the disciplinary authority examined Mr. Basavaraj as MW.1 and produced the documents Ex.M1 to Ex. M12. The said oral and documentary evidence were not considered by the Tribunal before passing the award. Therefore he sought to set aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal. 6. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that arises for my consideration in the present writ petition is: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 7. 6. Having given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that arises for my consideration in the present writ petition is: "Whether the Tribunal is justified in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was working as a Conductor in the establishment of the petitioner - Corporation. During the course of his employment, on 9.5.2000 while performing his duties in the bus, it was found by the checking officials that the respondent has failed to issued 15 tickets of Rs. 3.50 each and not collected the fare amount from the passengers while transferring from Punabhagatta to Satur and not closed the stage entry at stage No. 4. Though the articles of charge were issued, the Enquiry Officer after conducting detailed enquiry submitted the report holding that the charges are proved. It is also not it dispute that after holding the detailed enquiry, the disciplinary authority considering the report of the Enquiry Officer by an order dated 9.1.2002 proceeded to impose punishment reducing one increment with cumulative effect and treating the suspension period as not on duty. It is also not in dispute that after lapse of six years, the workman raised the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, by an order dated 7.2.2012 proceeded to hold that the enquiry conducted is not fair and proper. Therefore it has permitted both the parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence. It is an undisputed fact that in spite of the opportunity given to the workman before the Tribunal, the workman has not availed any opportunity to adduce evidence and produce the documents. Per contra, the Management examined Mr. Basavaraj as MW.l and got marked 12 documents as Ex.M1 to Ex.M12. It is also undisputed fact that the workman has admitted the charge as per Ex.M9 and it reads as under: VERNACULAR MATTER 8. Per contra, the Management examined Mr. Basavaraj as MW.l and got marked 12 documents as Ex.M1 to Ex.M12. It is also undisputed fact that the workman has admitted the charge as per Ex.M9 and it reads as under: VERNACULAR MATTER 8. The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay of six years in raising the dispute relying upon the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board (2007) 14 SCC 291 and in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another AIR 2011 SC 455 . Except the said observations, the Tribunal absolutely not discussed the delay in raising the dispute in the proper perspective. Apart from the same, the respondent as stated supra as per Ex.M9 has admitted the guilt. In view of the same, the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority exercising the powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act. 9. Further, even though in the objections filed by the Petitioner - KSRTC to the claim statement, it is specifically stated that the respondent-workman already involved in 53 offences and he was kept under suspension and later, the said order was revoked, absolutely no discussion is made by the Tribunal in that regard. The 1st respondent has not improved even after revocation of the suspension order stated supra and has again failed to issue 15 tickets of Rs. 3.50 each and not collected fare from the passengers while transferring from Punabhagatta to Satur and not closed the entry stage at Stage NO.4. In view of the past conduct and in view of the admission made by the workman on 4.12.2001 as per Ex.M9 admitting the guilt, the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. 10. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present writ petition has to be held in the negative holding that the Tribunal is not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 164/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli is quashed. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 8.11.2012 passed by the Tribunal in I.D. No. 164/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli is quashed. The order of punishment dated 9.1.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority reducing the basic pay of the workman by one incremental stage permanently and treating the suspension of the workman as not on duty, is restored and the said order is upheld.