THE Federal Court has reserved judgment in its decision over ex-security guard Subramaniam Letchimanan’s case to fight in alleged unlawful dismissal case against the US government.
“It has been 13 years since Subramaniam – an ordinary security guard took the most powerful country in the world to court.
“Yesterday, the court heard all parties’ oral arguments for three hours but had reserved its decision on this matter,” Parti Sosialis Malaysia deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan said, in a statement.
The hearing yesterday morning was held virtually before the Federal Court Judges Tan Sri Azahar Mohamed, Datuk Zabariah Mohd Yusof and Datuk Seri Hasnah Mohammed Hashim.
Subramaniam was working at the US embassy as a security guard for 20 years, until he received a phone call on April 4, 2008, informing the former that his service has been terminated with immediate effect.
A month later, Subramaniam lodged a report with the Industrial Relations Department (IRD), under Section 20 of the Industrial Relations Act for unlawful dismissal.
On Jan 8, 2020, the High Court ruled in favour of the US Government and quashed the referral by Kulasegaran in ordering the case to be referred to the Industrial Court.
However, in Feb last year, the Court of Appeal overturned the High Court ruling which quashed a referral by former Human Resource Minister M Kulasegaran ordering Subramaniam’s case to be referred to the Industrial Court.
Kamaludin added that it was for the tribunal to determine whether the foreign mission had absolute immunity from local laws.
On that note, Arutchelvan said that the US Government had obtained leave from Federal Court on Sept 30, 2021 after losing the case in the Court of Appeal.
During the hearing, Subramaniam’s lawyer K Ragunath argued the Court of Appeal had rightly held, inter alia, that the Industrial Court is the proper forum to decide on Subramaniam’s dismissal and the applicability of the restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity can only be determined after a fact-finding process in the Industrial Court.
“The counsel representing the human resources minister, Liew Horng Bin, agreed and contended that parties cannot seek an order to prohibit the Industrial Court from hearing the Minister’s reference before it has the opportunity to hear the matter and make a determination on the jurisdictional question.
“If a party is aggrieved by such decision, the proper recourse would then be to apply for a judicial review against such decision,” Arutchlevan quoted Liew as saying.
However, the US Government countered by saying that the issue of disciplinary conduct of an embassy staff is an internal matter and is the prerogative of a sovereign state.
“Hence the US authorities say they are immune and the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter,” he mentioned.
Arutchelvan quipped, “We hope that the Federal Court will do justice to the victim who is still waiting for his day in court.” – March 29, 2022
