leave or without sufficient cause would amount to misconduct. Earlier a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for being unautorizedly absent from duties for a period of 199 days; after a full fledged departmental enquiry, he was punished with penalty of reduction in pay-scale by one stage. Against which petitioner submitted an application before the authority concerned along with conditional resignation letter. Whereupon, petitioner was called for counselling session but he refused to attend counselling session. Thereafter, again a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner for remaining absent from duty unauthorizedly for the subsequent period from 9.2.2000 to 30.6.2000 and after conclusion of departmental enquiry in accordance with law, the order of termination from service was passed against the petitioner on 9.7.2001. In the crossexamination, available at Page No.119 of writ petition, the petitioner admitted that he was earlier punished for being unauthorizedly absent for a period of 199 days, which shows that petitioner is habitual leave taker. On filing of application under Section 31 (3) read with Section 61 of the Act of 1960, the Labour Court followed the procedure prescribed and decided the application of petitioner in accordance with law. The Industrial Court also found that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Labour Court by which application of petitioner filed under Section 31 (3) of the Act of 1960 was rejected. Thus, there is concurrent finding of fact by two Courts below.
