K S JOY Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving as Office Assistant with respondent No. 1-Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad (for short "IIM"). His services have been terminated by order dt. 20/09/1988 with immediate effect on payment of one month's salary and retrenchment compensation. The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of this order and prayed for reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Upper Division Clerk by order dated 31/05/1967. After confirmation on this post he was promoted as Office Assistant some time in June, 1973. The petitioner was the Secretary of the Union, i.e., Indian Institute of Management Employees' Association and in this capacity he has sponsored, several litigations and represented the cause of the employees before the authorities of respondent No. 1-Institute.

(3.) The petitioner has averred with regard to his activities and the grievances which he raised against the management of respondent No. 1 Institute and against certain Officers. It is his contention that the order of termination of service is penal order; it is not an order of termination simpliciter of service; that it has been passed without holding any inquiry and without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and, therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice and hence illegal and void. It is also contended that the order is in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1987 inasmuch as many juniors to the petitioner have been retained in service and without recording any reason whatsoever his services have been terminated. It is further contended that the order is passed in contravention of the provisions of Sec. 51A of the Gujarat University Act, 1&49 (for short "G. U. Act".) The petitioner also contended that the respondent-IIM is 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India, and even if it is not held to be 'State', it is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this High Court.