On April 1, the High Court in Kuala Lumpur granted a judicial review application filed by the United States (US) government to overturn an RM66,000 award given by the Industrial Court to a former security guard at the US Embassy, L. Subramaniam, for wrongful dismissal.
Judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh, in his decision, stated that the US government and its embassy are immune and protected from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967, thereby allowing the judicial review to proceed. Subramaniam was ordered to pay RM8,000 in costs.
The legal representation for the US government was provided by lawyers Lim Heng Seng and Summer Chong Yue Han, while Subramaniam was represented by lawyer Ragunath Kesavan. Senior federal counsel Liew Horng Bin acted as the amicus curiae for the Attorney General.
The US government initiated the application on August 9 last year, naming the Industrial Court and Subramaniam as the first and second respondents, seeking to invalidate the award issued to Subramaniam in 2023.
The US government argued that Subramaniam’s dismissal for internal disciplinary misconduct was a matter within the embassy’s jurisdiction, and therefore, they are shielded by immunity from the Industrial Court’s jurisdiction concerning claims under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
In a previous ruling on January 8, 2020, the High Court had upheld the immunity of the US government and its embassy, barring the Industrial Court from hearing Subramaniam’s case of unlawful dismissal.
In 2021, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision, prompting the US government to escalate the matter to the Federal Court, which ultimately rejected the appeal.
Subsequently, on April 27 last year, the Industrial Court directed the US Embassy to compensate Subramaniam with RM66,000 after determining that his dismissal was unjustified. Subramaniam had served as a security guard at the embassy for over a decade before being terminated in 2008.
Subramaniam contended that his role at the embassy was limited to auxiliary tasks and did not involve participation in the diplomatic or governmental activities of the United States. He also maintained that he had no access to confidential embassy or US government information or documents.
The latest ruling by the High Court granting the US government’s judicial review application marks a significant development in the legal dispute between the parties, solidifying the immunity of the US government and embassy in this particular case. – Bernama
