ORDER : D. Veerappa, J. This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned award dated 18.10.2012 made in ID No. 11/2005 on the file of the industrial Tribunal. Hubli allowing the reference under Section 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and setting the disciplinary order of punishment dated 21.9.1994 reducing the basic pay of the work man by two incremental stages with cumulative effect and treating the period of suspension of the respondent-workman as the period not on duty. 2. It is the case of petitioner that the respondent-workman was appointed as Helper B in its establishments-Corporation and while testing the bus on 23.9.1993 at about 5.00 p.m. he drove the bus bearing No. MEM 5979 un-authorisedly in the depot premises, causing an accident by dashing it against a diesel tank as a result of which there was a damage to the diesel tank and it was not possible to take out diesel front it since there was also inconvenience in the depot for filling up diesel for other vehicles. On the basis of the same, articles of charges was issued 01.10.1993 and the workman submitted his reply. Not being satisfied with the same was subjected to domestic enquiry. During the enquiry, the workman admitted the charge levelled against him. The enquiry officer, after holding detailed enquiry, submitted his report holding charges are proved. The Disciplinary authority accepting the findings of the enquiry officer passed an order dated 21.9.1994 reducing the basic pay of the workman by two incremental stages with cumulative effect. 3. It is further case of the petitioner Corporation that the respondent-workman after a lapse of 11 years raised a dispute the Industrial Tribunal. Hubli. The Tribunal after issuing notice to the parties and after hearing both the parties by the impugned award dated 1.1.2008 has set aside the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary. Authority which was the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the Corporation before this Court in W.P. No. 7713/2008 which came to be allowed by remanding the matter for re-adjudication to the Tribunal. After remand, fresh evidence was recorded and after considering the entire material on record by the impugned award allowed the reference setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. After remand, fresh evidence was recorded and after considering the entire material on record by the impugned award allowed the reference setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Hence, the present petition is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the his. 5. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel for petitioner - Corporation vehemently contented that the charges levelled against the workman is that he drove the bus un-authorisedly and caused the accident. In the enquiry proceedings, charges levelled against him were proved and therefore, he was imposed with the punishment proportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him on 21.9.1994 against which the workman raised an industrial dispute in the year 2005 after a lapse of 11 years. The Tribunal except making cryptic observation at para-19 of the impugned award has not considered the delay and absolutely no discussion is made. Therefore she submits that after a lapse of 11 years, the Corporation could not have adduced evidence on account of delay in raising the dispute. She further contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Corporation has failed to establish the cause incurred towards repair of the diesel tank which was caused in the accident. It has also failed to notice that the damages caused is admitted by the workman in Ins statement and he has also got repaired the same at his own costs. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned award passed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground of delay and lathes. 6. Per contra, Sri S.P. Ramesha, learned counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned award contending that, the Tribunal at para-19 has considered the delay, though there is no detail discussion. He also submits that, the Tribunal while passing impugned order has not considered the detailed explanation offered by the workman as per Ex.W.2 memorandum of appeal, Ex.W.3 - the application of the workman dated 23.8.1994 and Ex.W.4 - certificate of posting etc. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned award in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 8. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is:- "Whether the Tribunal is justified in passing the impugned award in the facts and circumstances of the present case?" 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record. 9. It is an undisputed fact that, during the course of his duty as Helper B in the establishment of the Corporation on 23.9.1993, he drove the bus bearing No.MHF-5979 in the depot premises un-authorisedly and dashed against the diesel tank, as a result of which, the pump and other parts broke and hence, the diesel could not be taken out from the tank and it was not possible to fill diesel to the vehicles. On the basis of the said offence, articles of charges were issued. The respondent participated in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against him are proved. Based on the material on record and the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment to the workman by reducing his basic pay by two incremental stages with cumulative effect on 21.9.1994. 10. In the reference, the Tribunal framed the issues and issue No. 4 was with regard to whether the workman was justified in raising the dispute after a lapse of 10 years against the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.9.1994? 11. The Tribunal by the award dated 22.6.2009 set aside the punishment order passed by the Disciplinary Authority which was the subject matter in W.P. No. 7713/2008 before this Court and this Court in turn quashed the said award and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 12. It is also not in dispute that, after remand, the Tribunal framed additional issue as under :- "Whether the management was justified in taking proper decision against workman?" and allowed the parties to adduce evidence. Accordingly one Renuka is examined as M.W.2 on behalf of the management and workman did not chose to adduce any evidence after remand. 13. When there is a specific issue framed by the Tribunal, it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider all the materials both oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties with regard to the delay. Accordingly one Renuka is examined as M.W.2 on behalf of the management and workman did not chose to adduce any evidence after remand. 13. When there is a specific issue framed by the Tribunal, it is the duty of the Tribunal to consider all the materials both oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties with regard to the delay. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent workman has rightly pointed out that the Tribunal has not considered Ex.W2 memorandum of appeal, Ex.W3 application of the workman dated 23.8.1994 and Ex.W4 certificate of posting with regard to delay. In the entire impugned award, the Tribunal except at para 19 relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board (2007) 14 SCC 291 and Kuldeep Singh v. G.M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Another AIR 2011 SC 455 wherein it has been held that the delay in raising the dispute will not invalidate the reference, absolutely no discussion is made with reference to the pleadings and documents relied upon by the workman for delay as slated supra as well on the delay of 11 years. 15. Even though writ petition No. 7713 2008 remanded for reconsideration by this Court again the same mistake is committed by this Tribunal without reference to both oral and documentary evidence on record relied I upon by the parties to the his and has pro- Proceeded to pass the impugned award. 16. It is well settled principle of law that, though the law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to ex-I excise its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, it docs not mean that the power can be exercised at any point of time. The words, 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) of the said Act do not mean that the laws of limitation are not applicable to the proceeding under the I.D. Act. However the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged aged or allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal while considering the dispute has to record reasons and give a finding as to whether the claim is still alive or has become stale. However the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged aged or allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Tribunal while considering the dispute has to record reasons and give a finding as to whether the claim is still alive or has become stale. In the present case, the Tribunal has not recorded any finding with regard to the existence of the industrial trial dispute between the pat ties for adjudication. 17. In view of the fact that no discussion is made with regard to both oral and documentary evidence on record on behalf of the workman to condone the delay of 11 years and, non consideration of the specific contention raised by the Management in the counter objection to the claim petition with regard to delay, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and the matter requires re-Consideration. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the writ petition is answered in the negative holding the Tribunal is not justified in passing the impugned award. 18. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 10.9.202 Annexure-H and 18.10.2012 Annexure-L made in I.D. No. 11/2005 by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to permit both the parties to lead additional evidence, if any and consider all the material documents produced by the workman both oral and documentary evidence on record as well as the specific contention taken by the Management in the counter objection to the claim petition with regard to delay and pass fresh award in accordance with law. 19. All the contentions raised by both the parties arc left open. 20. Both the parties arc directed to appear before the Tribunal on 9.2.2017.