ORDER : Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J. 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 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. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders, as well as the appointment letter dated 18-10-2011. Condition No. 14 contained in the appointment letter reads as under: "14. He may be discharged from his duties at any time. If he wants to resign or if he is requested to resign, both the parties to this agreement have to give 02 months advance notice. In the notice period of 2 months he will not be permitted to take leave." 5. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is belied by Condition No. 14 quoted above. According to Condition No. 14, the Project Director can be discharged from his duties "at any time". However, it is only when the Project Director wishes to resign, or is requested to resign that two months prior notice is to be given by the concerned party. Therefore, the requirement of giving a two months notice does not apply to a discharge from the post. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that prior to discharging the petitioner from the said post, the respondents are duty bound to issue a notice of two months prior thereto. According to Condition No. 14, a Project Director can be discharged from his duty at any time without issuance of a notice. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is clearly unacceptable. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has neither challenged the order dated 16-9-2016 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to discharge the petitioner, nor the said order has been challenged on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner could not have taken the decision suo motu, and the Deputy Commissioner needs to be directed by the Labour Commissioner before discharging the petitioner from the post of Project Director. Since the Deputy Commissioner has acted within his power, the order dated 16-9-2016 cannot be faulted, especially, when the Deputy Commissioner has given cogent reasons for discharging the petitioner from the post of Project Director. Even if the said order has been passed without any direction from the Labour Commissioner, the said order cannot be faulted by this Court. 7. Even the order dated 19-9-2016 cannot be faulted, on the ground that it has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. As noted above, according to Condition No. 14, there is no requirement for the Labour Commissioner to give any prior notice to the petitioner before discharging him from the service. The order dated 19-9-2016 further directs the Deputy Commissioner to initiate the process of appointment of new Project Director as per the Central Office Circular. Thus, the said order cannot be held to be an illegal one. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition. It is, hereby, dismissed.