JUDGMENT : 1. The delay of 176 days in filing the Appeal is condoned. Heard of merits. 2. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the Employer-NWKRTC, Gadag against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.2017, whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the punishment which had been modified by the Industrial Tribunal Hubballi, vide its order dated 11.08.2011 in ID No.403/2009 filed by Sri. Srinivas Siddappa Naragund against the Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Gadag Division, Gadag. 3. The operative portion of the impugned order passed by the Industrial Tribunal is quoted below for ready reference: “ORDER Reference bearing No.KaaE:701:IDB:2009 dated 29.07.2009 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 made by the Under Secretary attached to the Department of Labour, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore is hereby allowed in part. The impugned order of punishment bearing No.VaaKaRaSaa:GaV:ShiSha: 80(96):3317 dated 24.02.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority reducing the basic pay of the workman by three incremental stages permanently is hereby set aside and by way of modification, it is ordered that one increment of the workman of the year 1995 be withheld without cumulative effect for a period of one year only which shall not have the effect of postponing the future increments. The workman is entitled to the monetary benefits in tune with this modified order of punishment. The management shall work out the admissible monetary benefits in tune with this modified order of punishment and extend the admissible monetary benefits to the workman without any interest within six months from the date of publication of this award in the circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of this award be sent to the Government for publication as contemplated under section 17-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, computerized by her, prints out corrected and then signed by me this 19th day of August 2011) Sd/- (C.B.Hipparagi) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Hubballi.” 4. The learned Single Judge has held that the said modification of punishment is not required to be interfered with the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Para 6 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is also quoted before for ready reference. “6. This Court is not an appellate authority in a matter of this nature. Para 6 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is also quoted before for ready reference. “6. This Court is not an appellate authority in a matter of this nature. Very limited scope is there to interfere in case there is violation of principles of natural justice and domestic enquiry is not fair and proper and discretion exercised by the Management and the Tribunal or Labour Court is arbitrary. No such grounds are made out in the present case. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- Judge.” 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, we are satisfied that the present Writ Appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed and the order of the learned Single Judge does not deserve any interference of this Court. There is no minimum punishment prescribed for the alleged charge against the delinquent official, namely, non-disclosures of motor vehicles purchased by him in the said period in question. The Tribunal has modified the said punishment from reduction of three grade increments permanently to one grade increment, which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal. No interference in the said order deserves to be made by this Court and the present Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.