SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR B.M. S/O. MAHESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 UEARS PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT SOCIETY CHIKKAMAGALURU Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT DISTRICT CHILD LABOUR PROJECT SOCIETY, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Mr. Praveen Kumar B.M, is aggrieved by the orders dated 16-9-2016 and 19-9-2016. By the former order, the petitioner has been discharged by the Deputy Commissioner and President of the District Child Labour Project Society. By the latter order, the Labour Commissioner has directed the Deputy Commissioner to tenninate the service, and to start proceedings to appoint a new Project Director as per the Central Office Circular.

(2.) In short the facts are that the petitioner is a Post-graduate degree holder in Social Works which he acquired in the academic year 2007-08. Since the petitioner was searching for a suitable job, he applied for the post of Project Director in reply to a notification issued by the Department of Labour. By order dated 18-10-2011, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Project Director. The appointment was both temporary, and honorary one. On 18-8-2016, the Assistant Labour Commissioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, wherein he brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, the irregularities committed by the petitioner. On the basis of the said letter, by Official Memorandum dated 16-9-2016, the petitioner was discharged from the service by the Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, by-letter dated 19-9-2016, the Labour Commissioner has directed the Deputy Commissioner to terminate the petitioner's service, and to commence the proceedings to appoint a new Project Director. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. A. Nagarajappa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that according to Condition No. 14 of the letter of appointment dated 18-10-2011, in case, the petitioner on his own, or for any' other reasons, the Project Director needs to be discharged, then the respondents are required to issue two months notice intimating to the Project Director, the reasons to discharge him/her. However, in the present case, no such notice was issued to the petitioner, and he has been discharged, by order dated 16-9-2016. Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner has discharged the petitioner even prior to any direction issued by the Labour Commissioner, as the Labour Commissioner has directed the Deputy Commissioner to terminate the petitioner from service only on 19-9-2016, yet the petitioner has been discharged on 16-9-2016, i.e. three days earlier. Therefore, the order dated 16-9-2016 is an illegal one. Lastly, prior to issuing the letter dated 16-9-2016, and before discharging the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner's discharge is in violation of the principles of the natural justice. Hence, both the impugned orders need to be interfered with.