KUALA LUMPUR: Former security guard L. Subramaniam has 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.
According to Subramaniam's appeal notice, his counsel R. Kesavan filed the notice in the High Court Registry on April 2, a day after the High Court judge Datuk Amarjeet Singh annuls the reward.
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 former security guard L. 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 in 2023 to Subramaniam.
The US government also sought a court order that Subramaniam's dismissal for internal disciplinary misconduct was within the embassy, saying that the country and its embassy are protected by immunity from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court concerning claims under Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967.
On Jan 8, 2020, the High Court ruled that the US government and its embassy were protected by immunity and prohibited the Industrial Court from adjudicating 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 had been a security guard at the embassy for more than 10 years before he was terminated in 2008.
Subramaniam claimed that he was merely performing auxiliary duties at the embassy and was not involved in the diplomatic functions or governmental decisions of the United States.
He also contended that he had no access to confidential information or documents relating to the embassy or the US government.