BHARATKUMAR GAJANAND VYAS Vs. MAHATMA GANDHI LABOUR INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahatma Gandhi Labour Institute, Ahmedabad, respondent No.1, has suspended the present petitioner on the ground that the petitioner went on hunger strike on 2nd October, 2000 by sitting at the front entrance of the institution as well as on the ground that he had refused to drive the vehicle of the Institution on 11.10.2000 on the ground that unless he was provided with Log Book, he will not drive the vehicle. On the aforesaid two grounds, the petitioner is placed under suspension since 13th August, 2000.

(2.) The present petitioner is serving as a driver in the respondent No.1-Institution and he is a Class III employee of the said Institution. He is serving since last 16 years on the said post. The petitioner used to drive the vehicle attached to Mr.S. Chandrasekhar, the Director General of the Institution. in the past, the petitioner had addressed certain representations in connection with certain demands. One of such representations is annexed at page 20, Annexure `B', which is addressed to the Chairman of the respondent No.1-Institution. The Labour Minister is the Chairman of the said Institution. In the said representation, the petitioner has pointed out to the Chairman that he is staying at Odhav area of Ahmedabad City and that the Director General is staying at Gandhinagar and that, in order to see that the petitioner can effectively discharge his duties, he had applied for allotment of a quarter at Gandhinagar and that, on one ground or the other, his application is not accepted and that he was deprived of getting the benefit of quarter at Gandhinagar. In the said letter, the petitioner has also raised a demand for giving uniform, which, according to him, was required to be provided to the driver. It is also further stated by him in his representation that Mr.Chandrasekhar, the Director General, was often interrupting him at the time of driving the vehicle and he himself sometimes drives the vehicle at a very excessive speed and, ultimately, if the vehicle meets with an accident, the driver can be subjected to a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and imprisonment for six months. In the said representation, he has made some grievances against Mr.Chandrasekhar, the Director General. In the present proceedings, we are not concerned with the merits or otherwise of the said grievances, demands or allegations of the petitioner which he has ventilated in his representation dated 18.9.2000. Thereafter, it seems that, the petitioner sat at the entrance of the said Institution on 2nd October, 2000, at 9.00 O'clock in the morning. Ultimately, on request, the petitioner got up and went away from the said place. It is stated in the said suspension order at Annexure `A' that on request of the Chairman, the petitioner ultimately went away and that he had not remained on fast after 9.00 O'clock on 2nd October, 2000. It is stated that it cannot be said that the venue selected by the petitioner for the fast was proper. The other ground mentioned in the suspension order is that on 11.10.2000, the Director General of the Institution was required to attend the meeting at Gandhinagar, but the petitioner demanded Log Book and refused to drive the vehicle unless he was provided with the Log Book. In the suspension order, it is stated that, on the basis of the noting given by the Driver, the Log Book is required to be returned to the Assistant and the said procedure is followed since 1999 and that, accordingly, the petitioner refused to drive the vehicle in question on 11.10.2000.

(3.) Mr.Anand Yagnik, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has challenged the aforesaid suspension order on various grounds.