( 1 ) THE Award of the Industrial Tribunal, Ananthapur in I. D. No. 113/89, dated 12-12-1990 is assailed by the Workman.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the Award are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clearner in A. P. S. R. T. C. in 1981. While so, on the intervening night of 22-4-1988 he is alleged to have committed some misconducts, thereupon a charge-sheet was issued and after the enquiry was conducted, he was meted out with the punishment by orders dated 31-8-1988 and after availing the appeal remedy unsuccessfully the petitioner filed an application under section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the 1st respondent- industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, challenging the punishment imposed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submits that the charges as framed against him are not inconsonance with the provisions of A. P. S. R. T. C. Employees Regulations. Further, there is no sufficient evidence to establish the charges framed against the petitioner. He further assessed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse and in some cases, the finding is not based on any evidence. Finally, he also submits that even assuming that the charges have been