ORDER: NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Award in I.D.No. 85 of 2006, dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. 2. Heard Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for the petitioner, and Sri, P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) That respondent No.2 was appointed as a temporary Cleaner w.e.f. 25.01.1980 and working under the control of the petitioner at the material time and he is bereft of clean record. The respondent No.2 while working in the night shift from 20.00 hours to 04.00 hours on 13.05.1988 was allotted the duty of sweeping of vehicles. But, after allotting the duties, he had swept only 15 vehicles and left the Garage without any permission and without any intimation to the shift Supervisors. Then, on duty Mechanics, who were maintaining the vehicles, informed the shift Supervisor that majority of vehicles were not swept. As such, another Cleaner was arranged by providing him double duty to avoid dislocation of services in the morning of 14.05.1988 and the same was endorsed in detail in S.D.Book. (b) Later, the same was reported to the Depot Manager, Narsampet, on 13.05.1988. Based on the report and on the basis of other material evidence, the respondent No.2 was kept under suspension and a chargesheet was issued on 21.05.1988 with the following charges. CHARGES: 1) For having absconded from the duties for 23.30 hours to 04.00 hours during the shift hours from 20.00 hours to 04.00 hours on 13.5.1988 without obtaining the permission of the shift supervisor, which is misconduct under Reg. 28(ix)(a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 2) For having failed to sweep the 15 vehicles bearing Nos. 5912, 4269, 32956, 7880, 2558, 4270, 7957, 8145, 9766, 2457, 2013, 1295, 6688 and 2322 while you were on duty on 13.5.1988, causing much inconvenience to the traveling public, which is misconduct under Reg.28(ix)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Reg. 1963. 4. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply for the above charges. Not convincing with the reply, the petitioner ordered for domestic enquiry duly nominating Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Divisional Manager's Office, Warangal, as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice and C.C.A. Regulations. 1963. 4. The respondent No.2 submitted his reply for the above charges. Not convincing with the reply, the petitioner ordered for domestic enquiry duly nominating Chief Inspector (Enquiries), Divisional Manager's Office, Warangal, as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry duly following the principles of natural justice and C.C.A. Regulations. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings and transmitted the report to the petitioner with a finding that the charges levelled against the respondent No.2, were proved. Thereafter, the petitioner having gone through the findings of the Enquiry Officer, imposed punishment against respondent No.2 through the proceedings dated 03.08.1988, with a penalty of deferment of annual increments be postponed for a period of two years which will have effect on his future increments. 5. The respondent No.2 after lapse of 16 years without availing internal remedies such as appeal and review, moved conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour as the same failed, the report was sent to Government by the conciliation authority, in turn, the Government referred the dispute to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for adjudication. 6. Even though the charges levelled against the respondent No.2 were proved, the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court in I.D.No. 85 of 2006, erroneously passed an Award by interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority against the respondent No.2, which is illegal. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Award passed by the respond No.1 is bad in Law, contrary to the facts and Circulars of the Corporation. The Labour Court ought not to have interfered with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority against the respondent No.2, even after coming to the conclusion that there is abnormal delay in questioning the punishment and the respondent No.2 failed to explain reasons for the delay. Moreover, the charges made against the respondent No.2 are proved. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Disciplinary Authority had taken lenient view and imposed a minor punishment even though the proved charges were serious in nature. The Tribunal erred in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 9. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the Disciplinary Authority had taken lenient view and imposed a minor punishment even though the proved charges were serious in nature. The Tribunal erred in modifying the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter and submits as follows: That after the chargesheet was issued to the 2 nd respondent on 21.05.2008 he had submitted his reply explaining the facts and circumstances and denied the allegations. The petitioner without considering the reply in a proper perspective ordered an enquiry wherein the respondent No.2 was denied reasonable opportunity to participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, contrary to material on record, submitted report holding that the respondent No.2 is guilty of charges. The report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is one sided, biased, perverse and only on assumptions and presumptions. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that based on perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner issued final order, dated 03.08.1988 by imposing the punishment. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No.2 filed I.D.No.85 of 2006 and the 1 st respondent passed an Award dated 06.09.2007 modifying the order passed by the petitioner to the extent of deferment of one annual grade increment for a period of two (02) years without cumulative effect and without any monetary benefits except for fixation of pay till 29.04.2005, and confirmed the same with regard to suspension period as ‘not on duty.’ 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that during the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer, the leading hand admitted that on 13.05.1988 before reporting for charted duty, the 2 nd respondent requested to grant leave. But, since the staff position was acute, the 2nd respondent was forced to discharge his duties despite suffering from ill-health. The Tribunal having appreciated the statement of the leading hand, had come to a conclusion that the 2nd respondent had performed maximum work in spite of ill-health and passed the above said award, dated 06.09.2007. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 12. The present Writ Petition seeks to set aside the Award in I.D. No.85 of 2006, dated 06.09.2007. Hence, this writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 12. The present Writ Petition seeks to set aside the Award in I.D. No.85 of 2006, dated 06.09.2007. In the instant matter, two charges were framed under Rule 28(ix)(a) and 28(ix)(a) & (xxxii) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations 1963 respectively. Upon proof of the charges, the petitioner Corporation imposed penalty upon the respondent No.2 namely deferment of one annual increment for a period of two years. This penalty is consequential to his future increments in the service, pursuant to proceedings, dated 03.08.1988. After hearing both parties, the learned Tribunal modified the said punishment by imposing the punishment of deferment of one annual grade increment for a period of two years, which shall have a consequential effect on future increments. Furthermore, besides treating the period of suspension was directed to be treated as a period not spent on duty by the petitioner and equivalent to deferment of annual increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner was not entitled to any monetary benefit, except for the fixation of pay till 29.04.2005. The period of suspension shall be deemed as not being on duty for all the purposes. 13. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that after the imposition of the penalty, respondent No.2 did not avail himself any remedy either by way of appeal or review. Furthermore, respondent No.2 remained passive for over 16 years, before subsequently initiating conciliation proceedings. Upon failure of conciliation, a factual report was submitted to the Government, which, in turn, referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. Notably, the respondent No.2, admitted to departing the garage at 2300 hours without giving prior intimation to any person. 14. The respondent No.2 contends that the authority without having issued a show cause notice, proceeded to take action against him, contrary to the Regulations of the Corporation. In addition, the respondent No.2 has failed to furnish reasonable grounds for the inordinate delay of 16 years seeking judicial recourse. Although the defects finding fault with the authorities action in respect of respondent No.2 is unwarranted and cannot be accepted. Should respondent No.2 have felt aggrieved by the order of the authority or Reviewing Authority within the prescribed period. In addition, the respondent No.2 has failed to furnish reasonable grounds for the inordinate delay of 16 years seeking judicial recourse. Although the defects finding fault with the authorities action in respect of respondent No.2 is unwarranted and cannot be accepted. Should respondent No.2 have felt aggrieved by the order of the authority or Reviewing Authority within the prescribed period. However, respondent No.2, without availing himself of such remedies, approached the Labour Court only after a lapse of more than 16 years. The Tribunal, upon examining respondent No.2’s service record, observed that deferment of the annual increment had previously been imposed twice before the instant penalty. Additionally, while respondent No.2 had admitted to leaving the premises at 23.30 hours without prior intimation, such conduct cannot be construed as abstention from duty, particularly, as he had previously alerted authorities to his health condition on two occasions. In the light of these circumstances, the Tribunal adopted a lenient approach. Notably, the Tribunal did not consider both the inordinate delay of 16 years in raising the claim as well as the existence of prior punishments namely deferment of annual increments twice before the imposition of the latest penalty. In modifying the punishment imposed by the petitioner Corporation without accounting for these factors, the Tribunal rendered a decision that is both untenable and improper. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016 while dealing with inordinate delay aspect, referred the Full Bench judgment delivered in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab , reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 and also referred P.V. Narayana Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others , reported in 2013 SCC Online AP 729 . The Apex Court in Kulwant Singh (1 supra) observed at para No.71, sub-para 7, as follows: “…. Where there is remises or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right. As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of Mandamus. As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of Mandamus. Para No.74 reads as follows: “…..in some cases where the delay is five years or so, the Supreme Court inclined to condone the delay but under different circumstances when the fundamental rights are violated or where the delay is not directly attributable to the party seeking the relief or where the rights of the third parties are not intervened or in matters where seniority of employees is not finalized, the Court would be justified to grant the relief, but not as a general rule of practice. …” 16. In the case on hand, the respondent No.2 herein after receiving the punishment order from the petitioner Corporation, did not approach the Appellate Authority or Reviewing Authority and he kept silent for more than 16 years and the said conduct of the respondent No.2 shows purely negligence of his part. Moreover, without observing the prima facie abnormal delay in approaching the Court without availing the appellate and reviewing remedies, the Labour Court treating the respondent No.2’s case under the beneficial Legislation, modified the punishment and the same is not tenable in view of the above referred judgment. 17. In matters of this nature, the Tribunals are required to exercise due caution and cannot entertain every claim under the guise of beneficial Legislation. The primary purpose of these laws is to protect the rights and well-being of workers and ensure a fair and balanced workplace environment. Such findings of the Labour Court, if applied, indiscriminately, are susceptible to misuse by employees. While employees are entitled to challenge illegalities or irregularities committed by the authorities, the jurisdiction of the Court can be invoked only when there is a violation of fundamental rights and after exhausting the remedies available under law. 18. In the present case, the Tribunal neither failed to take into account the inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 16 years by the respondent No.2 in approaching it nor did it consider the fact of deferment of annual increments being imposed twice prior to the present penalty. The Tribunal has mechanically modified the punishment imposed by the petitioner-Corporation and such interference cannot be sustained by this Court. The Tribunal has mechanically modified the punishment imposed by the petitioner-Corporation and such interference cannot be sustained by this Court. Though there is no limitation in filing the I.D., but while filing the I.D., the petitioner has to show cogent reasons for such delay. In the case on hand, the respondent No.2 did not assign any reason for filing the I.D. with such abnormal delay. Moreover, the law extends protection to those who are vigilant and not to those who sleep over their rights as expressed in the principle “vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subverniunt”. In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Award passed by the Tribunal in ID No.85 of 2006, dated 6.9.2007 is liable to be set aside. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal in ID No.85 of 2006, dated 6.9.2007. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.