Court chairman Amrik Singh said, after taking the entire circumstances of the case into consideration, he was of the view that the embassy had dismissed L Subramaniam without just cause or excuse.

Amrik said he came to that conclusion based on evidence adduced by both parties in the proceedings and after perusing the written submissions and supporting authorities.

Noting that the embassy claimed to have dismissed Subramaniam for misconduct, Amrik said: “The particulars of the misconduct of the claimant (Subramaniam) found in the unclassified memorandum and the email correspondence were not disclosed to the claimant for him to answer or provide any explanation and was only disclosed later in a judicial review proceeding.”

In a 62-page award made available to the media today, Amrik found that Subramaniam’s services had been terminated without the embassy first issuing him a show cause letter and without holding a domestic inquiry to give him the opportunity to answer charges made against him.

“Neither were there any reasons given to the claimant in writing or (verbally),” said Amrik.

He also said the embassy had not adduced any documentary evidence to rebut the claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal.

“Without any rebuttal evidence from the US embassy, it is sufficient for the court to hold that the claimant’s dismissal was without just cause or excuse,” he added.

Amrik said it would not be proper to order Subramaniam to be reinstated as the employer was a sovereign diplomatic mission.

Any order for a reinstatement would definitely embroil parties in further litigation, he said.

As such, Amrik said, the best remedy would be in the form of a monetary award.

Subramaniam worked with the embassy for 10 years until his dismissal on April 4, 2008.

The court chairman awarded him RM48,000 in back wages and another RM18,000 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Subramaniam’s representations were first referred by the human resources minister to the Industrial Court for adjudication in 2019.

The embassy had resisted the claim by relying on its immunity as a foreign state.

Its application for judicial review was allowed by the High Court in early 2020.

In its decision, the High Court held that the embassy, in exercising its sovereign authority, was not subject to proceedings in the Industrial Court by virtue of the doctrine of restrictive immunity.

However the Court of Appeal reversed that ruling.

The appeals court’s decision was upheld by the Federal Court last year, resulting in the matter being remitted to the Industrial Court.

Ragunath Kesavan and Tai Yong Fung represented Subramaniam while Amardeep Singh Toor and Summer Chong appeared for the US government.