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 27.04.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubli (for short 'tribunal') in I.D.179/2012 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 was selected and appointed as conductor by respondent-Corporation on 14.07.1986 and he was administering the bus bearing No.F-1301 as conductor on route Gokak to Davanagere. It was found by the checking squad on 27.01.1995 that petitioner -workman had failed to issue ticket to one passenger who was travelling from Dharwad to Haveri and had failed to collect fare of Rs. 19 from him. Hence, a report was prepared by 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 submitted by the petitioner, disciplinary authority imposed punishment whereby it reduced basic pay to one increment with cumulative effect by order dated 10.06.1996. Subsequently, petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the said order of punishment. However, in the year 2011-2012 through Trade Union, a dispute came to be raised before the authority and appropriate Government on receiving failure report from the conciliation officer, made reference to the jurisdictional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute and tribunal framed following issues for its determination: "(1) Whether the petition is stale on account of 16 years delay in raising the dispute? (2) Whether the respondent Management is justified in reducing one annual increment permanently of the first party vide order No.KST: DVG: DFL: 2936 : 95: 684(682): 95 dated 10.6.1996?" 4. Workman has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of management, one official was examined as M.W.1 and through him, 7 documents were marked as Exs.M.1 to Ex.M.7. (2) Whether the respondent Management is justified in reducing one annual increment permanently of the first party vide order No.KST: DVG: DFL: 2936 : 95: 684(682): 95 dated 10.6.1996?" 4. Workman has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. On behalf of management, one official was examined as M.W.1 and through him, 7 documents were marked as Exs.M.1 to Ex.M.7. Tribunal, After hearing the arguments advanced by the Union Leader and learned Advocate appearing for Management and on considering the evidence placed on record, by impugned judgment and award held that the claim made by the workman/writ petitioner is a stale claim and it was raised after 16 years and there was no satisfactory explanation/justifiable cause or credible material 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 with 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 filing an appeal before the appellate Authority which had not been disposed of and this aspect had 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 not in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, 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 the contention raised by the petitioner in that regard has been rightly rejected and there is no infirmity in said finding. Hence he prays for rejection of the writ petition. 7. Hence he prays for rejection of 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 order of punishment for reduction of basic pay by one increment with cumulative effect came to be passed on 10.06.1996 by the disciplinary authority. Said order was not challenged by the workman/petitioner for reasons best known till the year 2012, i.e., till dispute came to be raised by the Trade Union on behalf of the workman. Though it is contended that petitioner was prosecuting his claim before the appellate Authority, said plea has remained as without any proof and no material whatsoever was produced by the workman before the tribunal or before this Court in the present writ petition to substantiate said claim. It is for the first time in the claim petition which came to be filed before the tribunal, petitioner contended that he was prosecuting his plea assailing the order of punishment before appellate authority. However, not a scrap of paper was produced before tribunal or for that matter, even before this Court to substantiate said claim. It is because of this precise reason, tribunal, has appreciated the entire evidence available on record and has arrived at a conclusion that lapse of 16 years in raising a dispute has not been explained with credible material and there is inordinate delay in raising the said dispute. In that view of the matter, 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 10.06.1996 imposed by disciplinary authority and charge sheet Ex.M-4, when contention of petitioner is examined, it would clearly disclose that workman namely the petitioner had undisputedly received the charge sheet. However, no reply was furnished. The disciplinary authority has proceeded to consider the material available before it and has passed the impugned order of punishment on 10.06.1996 Ex.M-5. In the light of the said documentary evidence available on record, tribunal has recorded a finding that the workman had failed to reply to the charge sheet and deny the charges leveled against him. The disciplinary authority has proceeded to consider the material available before it and has passed the impugned order of punishment on 10.06.1996 Ex.M-5. In the light of the said documentary evidence available on record, tribunal has recorded a finding that the workman had failed to reply to the charge sheet and deny the charges leveled against him. It is not the case of the petitioner that either he has not been served with charge memo, Articles of charges or offence memo. 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 the workman before the 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 had been afforded an opportunity but he failed to make use of the same. As such, this Court is of the considered view that finding 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.