THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.13997 of 2008 ORDER: The 2nd respondent is working as Conductor in the Mahabubabad Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. The Depot Manager, the petitioner herein, issued an order of suspension-cum-charge-sheet dated 10-01-1995, alleging that the petitioner failed to collect fare and issued ticket to the passenger on 25-12-1994. He submitted explanation, and domestic inquiry was conducted. The petitioner passed an order dated 20-04-1995, imposing the penalty of deferment of annual increment, for a period of one year, with cumulative effect. The departmental remedies did not yield result to the 2nd respondent. He submitted an application to the Government, to refer the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (for short ‘the Act’) to the Labour Court. Reference was accordingly made to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, and it was taken up as I.D.No.103 of 2006. Through an Award dated14-08- 2007, the Labour Court answered the reference to the effect that the punishment imposed against the 2nd respondent was not justified, and modified the same to the one of deferment of increment, without cumulative effect. The petitioner challenges the Award of the Labour Court. Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C., submits that the order dated 20-04-1995, passed by the petitioner, became final, and that the reference was made with a delay of about 10 years. She contends that the reference itself was untenable, and at any rate, the Labour Court ought not to have entertained the same, and passed the Award under challenge. It is true that the reference under Section 10 of the Act was made to the Labour Court, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, almost a decade after the order, imposing the punishment against the 2nd respondent; became final. However, if the petitioner had any objection for the order of reference, or any steps preceding it, it ought to have challenged the same at the relevant point of time. No such steps were taken. The petitioner participated in the resultant industrial dispute, without any demur. It is settled law that an Industrial Tribunal, or Labour Court, cannot examine the legality of the reference made to them. Therefore, the contention advanced by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Further, the modification ordered by the Labour Court is not phenomenal, when compared to the charge levelled against the 2nd respondent. The punishment imposed by the Labour Court is reasonable and justified. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.03-07-2008. KO