ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the Award dated 21.04.2011 passed in I.D. No. 213/2008. The respondent though served is unrepresented. 2. The brief facts are that the respondent herein while discharging his duties as a Conductor on 25.01.1995 in the bus bearing No. KA-34/F-38, was intercepted and checked by the staff. At that stage, it was noticed that there were 41 passengers traveling in the said bus and the respondent has not collected the fare of Rs. 15/- from one passenger who was traveling between Dharwad and Belgaum i.e., the stages in between 28 and 40. It is in that view the checking staff had collected two un-punched tickets from the respondent and the penalty of Rs. 150/- was collected from the ticket-less passenger. The penalty receipts and the Offence Memo were produced at Ex.M1 and Ex.M2. The Articles of charge was issued and through the order dated 12.06.1995 the punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was imposed. The punishment had been implemented and sufficient time had elapsed and at that stage, the respondent sought for a reference of the dispute in I.D. No. 213/2008. The Industrial Tribunal, Hubli on considering the matter has arrived at the conclusion that in respect of the charge alleged against the respondent, no enquiry was held and therefore the punishment was set-aside. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 3. Though contentions with regard to the nature of consideration made relating to the charge and the punishment as imposed is urged, the contention as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset is that the Labour Court without adverting to the delay and a stale dispute that has been raised after nearly 13 years has proceeded to consider the matter and therefore seeks that the matter be interfered. To indicate that in similar set of circumstances, this Court has held the delay to be fatal has relied upon the order dated 01.12.2011 in W.P. No. 28610/2011. 4. In the said background, having perused the nature of consideration as made by the Labour Court, it is noticed that the aspect relating to delay and as to whether in that circumstance, the instant dispute suffers as a stale dispute is necessary to be taken note at the outset. 4. In the said background, having perused the nature of consideration as made by the Labour Court, it is noticed that the aspect relating to delay and as to whether in that circumstance, the instant dispute suffers as a stale dispute is necessary to be taken note at the outset. In that regard as already stated above, the order imposing the punishment is dated 12.06.1995 and the punishment imposed is also a minor punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect and such punishment has already taken effect and nearly 13 years had elapsed from the said date when the instant dispute has been raised. In that view, the order passed by the Labour Court without adverting to this aspect of the matter is not justified. Thus, taking into consideration the nature of the allegation for which the punishment had been imposed and also taking into consideration that the punishment imposed was only of withholding of one increment, the same has not been challenged immediately by the respondent, the award of the present nature will not be justified. Hence, the award dated 21.04.2011 passed in I.D. No. 213/2008 is set-aside. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.