JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is presented by a former Conductor working with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation for short) challenging order dated 12.3.2012 passed by the Honble Single Judge dismissing his W.P.No.39335/2011. 2. We have heard Shri L. Shekar, learned advocate for the appellant and Smt H.R. Renuka, learned advocate for the respondent. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, appellant was appointed as Conductor in the year 1992. On 17.4.1999, he was conducting a bus plying between Kanakapura to Salabanni. A squad checked the tickets and found following irregularities: i) Non-issue of tickets to 9 passengers despite collecting fare of Rs. 3/- each. ii) Non-issue of tickets to 4 passengers despite collecting Rs. 4/- each. iii) Re-issue of 3 tickets of Rs. 4/- each. iv) Failed to collect luggage fare from 3 passengers for 3 units. v) Had failed to close the stage entry despite reaching the stage no.5." 4. In the domestic enquiry, charges were held proved and appellant was dismissed from service on 27.6.2005. He raised a dispute before the Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer. The State Government by order dated 8.1.2007, referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act for short). The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue with regard to fairness of domestic enquiry and held it against the Corporation. After both parties let-in their evidence, the Labour Court held that the Corporation had established the misconduct and upheld the punishment. Appellant challenged the order passed by the Labour Court in the instant writ petition and the same has been dismissed by the Honble Single Judge. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Shri Shekar, learned advocate for the appellant urged a solitary contention that proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer between 23.9.2004 and 25.8.2005 with regard to charter of demands, whereas, the appellant has been dismissed from service on 27.6.2005, without complying Section 33(2)(b) of the Act and therefore, the dismissal order is bad in law. 6. Smt. Renuka, learned advocate appearing for the Corporation, opposing the appeal, urged that the appellant has sought to raise the contention with regard to compliance of Section 33(2)(b) for the first time before this Court. She submitted that, appellant was involved in 101 cases prior to dismissal. Further, appellant has admitted his misconduct in the cross- examination before the Labour Court. She submitted that, appellant was involved in 101 cases prior to dismissal. Further, appellant has admitted his misconduct in the cross- examination before the Labour Court. With these submissions, she sought for dismissal of this appeal. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused the records. 8. Honble Single Judges order reveals that it was urged before him by the appellant that the punishment was disproportionate and the order of dismissal was passed considering workmans past history; and it was urged on behalf of the management that the workman had become incorrigible and there was no sign of improvement even though he was imposed with minor penalties in 101 earlier occasions. 9. With regard to facts, the Hon’ble Single Judge has recorded that workman has admitted the alleged misconduct in his cross-examination. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: "9. Petitioner-workman does not dispute that checking squad detected the irregularity at the time of checking. In fact he admits in his cross-examination dated 20.11.2010 that checking squad conducted the check on the said date and he has further admitted that ticketless passengers were penalized and unpunched tickets have been seized from him.". (emphasis supplied) 10. In addition to the above, the Honble Single Judge has also recorded that evaluation of evidence recorded by the Labour Court revealed that appellant had failed to collect luggage fare and to close the stage entry. 11. It is fairly well-settled that, a litigant before the Court cannot be permitted to raise new contentions for the first time without urging them in original proceedings. [See Union of India and others v. Keshab Lal Roy and others (1996) 10 SCC 326 ]. In the case on hand, petitioner has been dismissed in the year 2005. The proceedings before the Labour Court ended in the year 2011. Petitioner has involved himself in 102 cases with 102nd case resulting in his dismissal from service. In the light of these lucid facts, we are of the view that, the technical argument with regard to compliance of Section 33(2)(b) of the Act raised for the first time before this Court does not merit consideration. 12. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. 13. In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. No costs.