ORDER : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. The petitioner-management is before this Court assailing the award dated 13.09.2013 passed in ID No.312/2009 impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. 2. The respondent herein is working as a conductor in the petitioner corporation. In respect of the punishment imposed through the order dated 31.12.2001 the respondent herein raised a dispute which came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the Government through its order dated 18.12.2009. The same was registered in ID No.312/2009. The punishment imposed on the respondent was of withholding one increment with cumulative effect. The Industrial Tribunal at the outset was of the opinion that the domestic enquiry held against the respondent was not fair and proper. In that light on taking note of the evidence before it, the Industrial Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the punishment imposed is not justified and the same has been set aside. It is against the said award the petitioner is before this Court in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the award would contend that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in entertaining the dispute and altering the punishment after eight years when the dispute was raised belatedly in the year 2009 in respect of a punishment imposed in the year 2000. It is further contended, in that circumstance when the petitioner would be handicapped in tendering further evidence before the Industrial Tribunal, the Industrial Tribunal would not be justified in holding it against the petitioner altogether to a contrary conclusion. The explanation as put forth by the respondent for the delay that an appeal was filed also was not justified inasmuch as no such appeal had been filed before the competent authority and in a circumstance where the respondent-workman had admitted the charge before the Enquiry Officer, no other consideration was required. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent would however seek to sustain the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. 5. In the light of the contentions, I have perused the petition papers. Insofar as the delay, the Industrial Tribunal in fact has referred to that aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the explanation as put forth has arrived at its conclusion that the delay is to be condoned and the matter is to be adjudicated on merits. 5. In the light of the contentions, I have perused the petition papers. Insofar as the delay, the Industrial Tribunal in fact has referred to that aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the explanation as put forth has arrived at its conclusion that the delay is to be condoned and the matter is to be adjudicated on merits. In that light what is necessary to be taken note is that even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no such appeal was filed to the competent authority, the document which had been marked as Ex.W.2 before the Industrial Tribunal had the seal of acknowledgment from the Depot Manager on 25.01.2002. If such appeal filed in fact was not to the competent authority it was required to be returned for appropriate presentation. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was not confronted to the witness of the petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal, when it has been brought on record in evidence and the petitioner had the opportunity to cross examine the respondent who had tendered evidence as WW.1 the same cannot be discarded. In that circumstance in any event, the delay as condoned by the Industrial Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case so as to mould the relief was justified. 6. Having done so, the Industrial Tribunal has arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. In that circumstance, even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent had admitted about the guilt in the domestic enquiry, the same would be of no consequence inasmuch as the charge in any event was to be established before the Industrial Tribunal when the validity of the enquiry had been set aside. To that extent, the Industrial Tribunal in fact has referred to the oral and the documentary evidence available before it. Insofar as the allegation that the respondent was in possession of excess cash of Rs. 204/-, the respondent herein has put forth the explanation regarding the possession of cash and the excess cash as alleged being the amount to be returned to the passengers in respect of the tickets that had been issued. 7. Insofar as the allegation that the respondent was in possession of excess cash of Rs. 204/-, the respondent herein has put forth the explanation regarding the possession of cash and the excess cash as alleged being the amount to be returned to the passengers in respect of the tickets that had been issued. 7. Be that as it may, in the circumstance where the domestic enquiry had been set aside and the charge was to be established before the Industrial Tribunal, when the Industrial Tribunal has taken into consideration that the material witness has not been examined and therefore there would be prejudice to the respondent when such a witness is not available to be cross examined and in that circumstance when the punishment as imposed on the respondent had been altered by the Industrial Tribunal after referring to all aspects of the matter, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the award so as to call for interference. Accordingly the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.