JUDGMENT : 1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, following prayers have been made: "[B] Be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by way of passing appropriate order, writ, mandamus or directions or writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the award dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 110/12 quashing and setting aside penal order of stoppage of increments for 3 years with future effect through order dtd. 27.7.95 duly passed by the competent authority with a further direction to stop one increment for a period of one year and make good the financial loss caused to the respnt. no.1 annexed as Annexure-F in the interest of justice. [C] Pending the admission, final hearing and disposal of the present Special Civil Application be pleased to stay the implementation execution & operation of award dated 12.11.14 passed by the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 110/12 quashing and setting aside penal order of stoppage of increments for 3 years with future effect through order dtd. 27.7.95 duly passed by the competent authority with a further direction to stop one increment for a period of one year and make good the financial loss caused to the respnt. no.1 annexed as Annexure-F in the interest of justice. [D] Be pleased to call for the record of the case bearing Ref.(IT) No.110/12 from the Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot." 2. Initially, notice was issued by the Coordinate bench of this Court on 08.06.2015 and implementation of the judgment and award impugned in the petition was stayed. 3. The respondent did not appear and therefore, on 27.07.2015, the Coordinate Bench of this Court admitted the matter and interim relief granted earlier came to be confirmed. 4. Though the rule has been issued and the same has been served to the respondent employee, he has chosen not to appear before this Court. The matter has been adjourned time and again. 5. Today also, when the matter called out for final hearing, neither the respondent - employee nor any lawyer engaged by the respondent employee appeared before this Court for assistance. Hence, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 6. The matter has been adjourned time and again. 5. Today also, when the matter called out for final hearing, neither the respondent - employee nor any lawyer engaged by the respondent employee appeared before this Court for assistance. Hence, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 6. The brief facts arise from the record are as under: 6.1 That the respondent raised the industrial dispute in the year 2012 with regard to punishment of stoppage of three increments for permanent effect imposed by the authority on 27.07.1995. Since the dispute was not settled, the same was referred to the Industrial Court at Rajkot and the same was numbered as Reference (I.T.) No. 110 of 2012. 6.2 After considering the record available and examining the punishment imposed by the department, the reference was allowed in part and the punishment was reduced to one increment with permanent effect. 6.3 Hence, this petition. 7. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently submitted that considering the allegations against the respondent - employee, minor punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect was imposed. He would further submit that the said order was passed by the concerned authority on 27.07.1995, whereas, the reference has been raised in the year 2012 i.e. after a period of 17 years and therefore, the reference ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and particularly, when there is no explanation made by the respondent - employee. He would further submit that when there is minor punishment, the reference Court ought not to have exercised the powers under Section 11(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He would further submit that there are no allegations about any illegality with regard to the departmental inquiry and therefore also, the reference Court ought not to have exercised the powers. 8. In support of his case, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has relied upon the decision in case of South Indian Cashew Factories Workers' Union Vs. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 , the decision in case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , the decision in case of State Bank of Mysore & Ors. Vs. M.C.Krishnappa reported in (2011)7 SCC 325 . Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2006) 5 SCC 201 , the decision in case of U.P.State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , the decision in case of State Bank of Mysore & Ors. Vs. M.C.Krishnappa reported in (2011)7 SCC 325 . He would submit that considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions, the petition be allowed and the judgment and award impugned be quashed and set aside. 9. I have heard learned advocate Mr.Munshaw appearing for the petitioner. Perused the impugned judgment and award in the petition. It is an undisputed fact that the dispute has been raised after a period of about 17 years and apart from the said aspect, the imposition of punishment of stoppage of three increments with permanent effect, which is of a minor in nature and therefore, the reference Court ought not to have gone into the validity of punishment and particularly, in absence of any allegations about any procedural lapses in departmental inquiry. The issue has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases and the present case also falls under the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred cases. Hence, the judgment and award dated 12.11.2014 passed in Reference (I.T.) No. 110 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. Direct service is permitted.