JUDGMENT : L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the workman being aggrieved of the order 9.03.2015 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi in ID No.240/2012 confirming the punishment of withholding one ensuing annual increment with cumulative effect. 2. The facts to be stated in brief are that on 14.05.1996 when the petitioner was discharging his duties as a Conductor in Vehicle bearing No.F-0056 on the route from Nayakana Hatti to Chitradurga it was found that he had failed to issue 10 tickets of Rs. 1.25 to 10 passengers and failed to collect fare amount. The petitioner replied the articles of charge contending that he had in fact issued tickets and also collected the fare amount, but the passengers had lost the tickets. However, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect without conducting any enquiry. The punishment order was not communicated to the petitioner. He came to know of the same only in the year 2011. Immediately, he filed appeal before the appellate authority, but the appellate authority neither considered his appeal nor passed any orders. Hence he raised an industrial dispute which ended in failure and consequently referred to Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi for adjudication. 3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent examined one witness as MW-1 and marked 9 documents as Ex.M1 to M9. It is stated that the Tribunal did not extend opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence both on the question of delay and merits, but rejected the reference. Hence this writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent and perused the writ papers. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even for imposition of minor penalty, disciplinary authority ought to conduct domestic enquiry by extending reasonable opportunity, which is not there in the present case. No reasons are recorded for dispensing the enquiry. The Industrial Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the dispute on the ground of delay. The reason that the petitioner came to know the punishment order in the year 2011 and immediately he raised a dispute, ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits to dismiss the writ petition. The reason that the petitioner came to know the punishment order in the year 2011 and immediately he raised a dispute, ought to have been accepted by the Tribunal. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Corporation submits to dismiss the writ petition. The misconduct on the part of the petitioner was proved by documentary evidence and therefore the Management decided to dispense the enquiry and imposed a minor punishment. The Tribunal has not committed any irregularity so as to call for interference by this Court. 7. It is the case of the Management that the petitioner failed to issue tickets to 10 passengers and so also to collect the fare from them. Ex.M4 was the report sent by the Checking Inspector to the disciplinary authority. Ex.M8 Waybill showed noting of the checking officials finding ten ticket-less passengers traveling from Upparapete to Teranur. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was issued the charge sheet Ex.M5 to which the petitioner replied as per Ex.M6. The collection of ten un-punched tickets of Rs. 1.25 each from the ticket tray of the petitioner was also not disputed. Ex.M9 noting sheet also showed the misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Though the petitioner contended that the penalty was collected at the intervention of the Inspector, the petitioner did not make any effort to examine the said Inspector also. It is no doubt true that non-collection of address of the ticket-less passengers is denial of opportunity to the petitioner, but that alone is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the Management in view of the available materials on record. Therefore, no error could be found either in dispensing the enquiry nor imposing a minor penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. 8. The petitioner sought to contend so far as delay in raising the dispute that he came to know the punishment order only in 2011 and immediately he filed appeal but the appellate authority neither considered the appeal nor disposed of the appeal and therefore he raised the dispute. The punishment order is dated 26.9.1996 and petitioner has simply stated, he could not know the order till 2011. Such a reasoning cannot be accepted and rightly not accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. No material is also made available as to the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 9. The punishment order is dated 26.9.1996 and petitioner has simply stated, he could not know the order till 2011. Such a reasoning cannot be accepted and rightly not accepted by the Industrial Tribunal. No material is also made available as to the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority. 9. On reconsidering the entire matter, petitioner has not made out any ground for interference. Accordingly writ petition is rejected.