JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal, which arises out of the order dated 20.12.2017 of the Learned Single Judge passed in CWP-6808-2015 titled Rajbir Singh v. Presiding officer & others, wherein the Labour Court's award dated 15.01.2015 was upheld and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') since the appointment was contractual the dispensation of service would come within the terms of the appointment as per agreement (Annexure R-3/1). Challenge has also been raised to the order passed in review dated 07.08.2018 since on an earlier occasion, liberty had been granted when LPA-180-2018 was withdrawn on 09.05.2018 to approach the learned Single Judge.

2. Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the orders below were not sustainable keeping in view the length of service and the fact that the appellant had been employed as Computer Operator on contractual basis in April, 2001 and had been posted with the Indian Red Cross Society, District Branch, Kurukshetra. The same had been taken over by the District Information & Technology Society (DITS) and he was relieved by the society on 28.02.2011 to join in the same. Thereafter, he continued to work under the HARIS project as a Computer Operator continuously w.e.f. 04.03.2011 as per the agreement dated 04.07.2011. He had worked for 11 years in the project and there was no complaint against him and his work and conduct remained good and satisfactory. He also performed election duties in the year 2004 in the Lok Sabha elections and Haryana Vidhan Sabha elections in 2005 and similarly in the years 2009 and 2010. He was getting salary at the DC rates @ Rs.7500/- per month which was deposited in his account and thus, his termination on 13.12.2011 was in violation of the provisions of Section 2 5F of the Act.

3. The allegations leveled against the workman was that he entered 11 documents in the computer and since the Naib Tehsildar and Registration Clerk had gone to Chandigarh to this Court for getting the reply vetted, they had asked the workman to enter the said documents. On a surprise visit by the SDM, Pehowa, the fault was put on him that he was filling in the documents without authority and no opportunity of hearing was given. He had approached this Court by filing CWP-9225-2012 which was disposed of on 16.05.2012 to seek appropriate remedy to challenge the retrenchment.

4. The defence of the State was that the termination order had been passed under Section 2 (oo) of the Act as per the agreement and it was also admitted that the other revenue officials had come to Chandigarh for official work in the AG office for preparation of the written statement and on inspection it was found that he was entering 19 documents without the permission of the Naib Tehsildar. It was also admitted that report was submitted wherein Des Raj, the Registration Clerk was also summoned and eventually the Enquiry Officer had recommended disciplinary action against the workman and his services had thus been dispensed with on 13.12.2011 with immediate effect. Resultantly, the stand taken was that he was not punished by way of disciplinary action but terminated on account of the fact that there was an assignment agreement in his letter of appointment.

5. The Labour Court also noticed that the enquiry was conducted by Ms.Sumedha Kataria, the Addl.Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra and recorded a finding that the service was dispensed with on the basis of the enquiry report but came to the conclusion that no regul