JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. 1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in 'B' Group, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for both parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This writ petition is filed by the workman/petitioner calling in question the award dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi (for short 'tribunal') in I.D.56/2013 where under reference made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the appropriate Government has been rejected both on the issue of delay in raising the dispute as well as on merits. 3. Petitioner came to be selected and appointed as conductor by the respondent-Corporation on 14.07.1986 and he was administering the bus bearing No.F-2382 as conductor on route Harihara to Banuvalli. It was found by the checking squad that petitioner-workman had failed to issue tickets to four passengers who were travelling from Harihara to Banuvalli and had failed to collect fare of Rs. 5 each from them. Hence, a report came to be prepared by the officials of checking squad and submitted to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority on the basis of report submitted by the checking squad issued Articles of charges to the petitioner and there being no reply received from the petitioner, order of punishment came to be passed by the disciplinary authority reducing petitioner's basic pay by increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect by order dated 24.01.2004. Subsequently, petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the said order of punishment. However, during the year 2011-2012 through Trade Union, a dispute came to be raised before the conciliating authority and appropriate Government on receiving failure report of conciliation, made reference to the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of said reference and tribunal framed the following issues for determination: "(1) Whether the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority ordering to reduce one annual increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect vide order No.Ka Ra Sa : Da Vi: Shi Sha : 3037 : 03 : 3371 dated 24.1.2004 is justified? (2) Whether the petition is time barred? (3) Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for? (4) What order?" 4. Workman did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of management, one official was examined as M.W.1 and through him, 7 documents were got marked as Exs.M.1 to Ex.M.7. (2) Whether the petition is time barred? (3) Whether petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for? (4) What order?" 4. Workman did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of management, one official was examined as M.W.1 and through him, 7 documents were got marked as Exs.M.1 to Ex.M.7. Tribunal, After hearing the arguments advanced by the Union leader representing the workman and learned Advocate appearing for Management and on considering the evidence placed on record, by judgment and award in question, held that the claim made by the workman/writ petitioner is a stale claim and there was inordinate delay in raising the dispute and no satisfactory explanation/justifiable cause or credible material was placed to substantiate the said delay being bonafide. Even on merits, tribunal found that challenge to the imposition of minor punishment of reducing the basic pay of the workman by one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect was not in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, rejected the reference by impugned award. 5. It is the contention of Sri M.C. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that tribunal failed to consider the material available before it in a proper perspective and cause for delay being on account of petitioner prosecuting his alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before appellate Authority which has not been disposed of till date and this aspect has not received the attention of the tribunal. He would also elaborate his submission by contending that tribunal failed to consider the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner is in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice was issued before passing order of punishment or no enquiry was held before imposition of punishment. Hence, he prays for quashing of the impugned award. 6. Per contra Sri. B.L. Sanjeev, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-Corporation would support the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contends that petitioner had failed to place any material before the tribunal to explain the delay and as such contention raised by the petitioner in that regard has rightly been rejected. Hence he prays for rejecting the writ petition. 7. B.L. Sanjeev, learned Advocate appearing for respondent-Corporation would support the judgment and award passed by the tribunal and contends that petitioner had failed to place any material before the tribunal to explain the delay and as such contention raised by the petitioner in that regard has rightly been rejected. Hence he prays for rejecting the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and award in question, it would clearly disclose that punishment of reduction by one increment from the basic pay without cumulative effect came to be imposed on 24.01.2004 by the disciplinary authority. Said order was not challenged by the workman/petitioner for reasons best known till 2012 i.e., till dispute was raised by the Trade Union on behalf of workman. Though it is contended that petitioner was prosecuting his claim before the appellate Authority, same has remained as without any proof and no material whatsoever was produced by the workman before tribunal or before this Court. For the first time in the claim petition which was filed before tribunal, petitioner contended that he was prosecuting his plea assailing order of punishment before the appellate authority. Not a scrap of paper was produced before tribunal or before this Court to substantiate said claim. It is because of this precise reason, tribunal, has appreciated entire evidence available on record and has arrived at a conclusion that inordinate delay of 8 years in raising a dispute has not been explained with sufficient cause. Hence, contention of Sri. M.C. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner on the issue of delay cannot be accepted and it stands rejected. 8. Insofar as merits of the case is concerned, in the background of the order of punishment dated 24.01.2004 imposed by disciplinary authority and offence memo Ex.M-1, when contention of Sri Basavaraju is examined, it would clearly disclose that petitioner had received charge sheet on 22.12.2003, and petitioner has affixed his signature to it. He did not submit his reply to the charge sheet with regard to non-issue of ticket to one passenger. Tribunal has recorded following finding. He did not submit his reply to the charge sheet with regard to non-issue of ticket to one passenger. Tribunal has recorded following finding. "The workman herein has pleaded in his claim statement that he had in fact issued tickets to all the four passengers and one among them who purchased the tickets had alighted from the bus earlier to the stage where the bus was subjected to check without handing over the purchased tickets to his fellow passengers. To substantiate this specific defense the workman has not examined any of the witness on his behalf and he himself has not entered the witness box. On his behalf simply cross-examination of M.W.1was done and during the course of his cross-examination no such fact was tried to be elicited. So the clear perusal of these facts and circumstances of the case would only demonstrate that this workman had failed to issue tickets to four passengers travelling from Harihar to Banuvalli and so also had failed to collect the ticket fare amount from the said four passengers. The workman by doing so clearly exhibited the intention of causing financial loss to the respondent Corporation and even to have wrongful gain for himself. This act of the first party workman clearly amounted to misconduct as contemplated under C & D Regulations of the respondent Corporation." It is not the case of the petitioner that either he has not been served with charge memo, Articles of charges or offence memo. 9. In that view of the matter, contention of Sri. Basavaraju, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that there has been violation of principles of natural justice cannot be accepted and the plea put forward by workman before tribunal in his evidence has remained as a plea without proof. On the other hand, respondent-Corporation has been able to demonstrate at all stages, petitioner has been afforded an opportunity but he had failed to make use of the same. As such, this Court is of the considered view that evidence recorded by the tribunal cannot be found fault with. There is no other good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, writ petition stands rejected.