FORMER U.S. EMBASSY GUARD FILES APPEAL

High Court judge had annulled Industrial Court award on grounds US govt and embassy have immunity

FORMER security guard L. Subramaniam filed an appeal to reinstate the RM66,000 award given by the Industrial Court for his wrongful dismissal by the United States embassy last year.

His counsel Ragunath Kesavan filed the notice in the High Court Registry on Monday, the same day High Court judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh annulled the award.

Amarjeet, in his judgment, said the applicant (the US government) and its embassy had immunity and were protected from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over the claim by Subramaniam under Section 20 (3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.

The US government filed a judicial review application (against the Industrial Court’s decision) on Aug 9 last year, naming the Industrial Court and Subramaniam as the first and second respondents.

It sought an order for the High Court to annul the award given by the Industrial Court last year to Subramaniam.

It also sought a court order that Subramaniam’s dismissal for internal disciplinary misconduct was within the embassy, and said that the country and its embassy had immunity from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court concerning the claim.

On Jan 8, 2020, the High Court ruled that the US government and its embassy have immunity and are protected from the Industrial Court jurisdiction over Subramaniam’s unlawful dismissal claim case.

However, in 2021, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and ordered the Industrial Court to proceed with hearing the dispute, prompting the US government to bring the matter up to the Federal Court, but the appeal was rejected.

On April 27 last year, the Industrial Court ordered the US Embassy to pay RM66,000 to Subramaniam after finding that he was unlawfully dismissed.

Subramaniam was a security guard at the embassy for more than 10 years before his services were terminated in 2008.

He claimed he only performed auxiliary duties at the embassy and was not involved in US diplomatic functions or governmental decisions.

He also contended that he had no access to confidential information or documents relating to the embassy or the US government.