Foreign missions not exempt from labour laws: Madras HC

Court directs the Sri Lankan deputy high commission in Chennai to reinstate a consular agent retrenched from service in 2018

Foreign diplomatic missions in India are not exempt from complying with the country’s labour and social security laws, particularly those concerning Indian nationals employed at their high commissions and consulates, the Madras high court ruled on Saturday, as it directed the Sri Lankan deputy high commission in Chennai to reinstate a consular agent retrenched from service in 2018.

Passing the order, justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that Indians working in foreign diplomatic missions do not need permission from the Centre under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CrPC) before approaching an industrial tribunal against their employers. (PTI)

Passing the order, justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that Indians working in foreign diplomatic missions do not need permission from the Centre under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CrPC) before approaching an industrial tribunal against their employers.

The judge noted that Parliament enacted the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 to give legal force to a convention adopted by the country at the UN conference on diplomatic intercourse and immunities held in Vienna on April 14, 1961.

“Article 33 of the Convention clearly states that only foreign nationals serving in a diplomatic mission are exempt from the social security laws of the receiving state. This exemption does not apply to nationals of the receiving state,” the court observed. “Employees not exempt under the article must follow the social security requirements set by the receiving state for employers. Consequently, management cannot claim immunity.”

Justice Chakravarthy also referred to a 1963 Supreme Court ruling to say that employees who are nationals of the receiving country have the right to raise labour disputes against a foreign sovereign.

The court granted a writ petition filed by T Senthilkumari, who worked as a consular assistant at the deputy high commission of Sri Lanka in Chennai from 2008 to 2018. She was retrenched after being paid one month’s salary as compensation without the additional compensation mandated by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The section requires employers to provide compensation equivalent to 15 days of average salary for each completed year of service when retrenching a permanent employee. The judge observed that she should be classified as a permanent employee since the petitioner had served for 480 days across two calendar years.