The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought compensation from the Government of India and Saudi Embassy for alleged negligence in his overseas labour dispute, holding they lack coercive powers in such matters.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/14TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 27814 of 2004 (J)
PETITIONER :
-----------
K.THANKAMANI, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN NADAR, VARUVILAKAM PUTHENVEEDU, KONNANNOORKONAM KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE, KARAKKONAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 504.
BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, DIPLOMATIC BAG CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI.
2. THE SECRETARY (LABOUR)/LABOUR ATTACHE, EMBASSY OF INDIA IN SAUDI ARABIA, POST BOX NO.943847 RIYADH-111693, SOUDI ARABIA.
3. GENERAL MANAGER,
4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, NORKA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 27814 of 2004 (J)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R1(a): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT R1.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) No. 27814 of 2004
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court praying inter alia for a direction to the 1st respondent to pay an amount of 6,25,000/- as compensation for the loss and₹ damage allegedly caused to him on account of the negligence, dereliction of duty and denial of employment on the part of the 2nd respondent in redressing his grievance.
..2..
W.P.(C) No. 27814 of 2004
affidavit disputing the allegations. It is pointed out that it is not within the powers of respondents 1 and 2 to extract results through any coercive means in labour related dispute between a private company in a foreign country and its employees. It is further pointed out that the 2nd respondent forwarded the matter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and properly took follow-up actions for getting a positive result.
..3..
W.P.(C) No. 27814 of 2004
rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, the failure of the petitioner to take up the issue with his Sponsor/Employer at the right time is the real reason for the delay in settling the matter. The petitioner could have approached the local Labour Court in case justice has been denied to him.
“a) To make a complaint before his employers/sponsors regarding non-payment of salary or any part of the same.
b) to petition the Embassy regarding non payment of his salary and termination of job before he left Saudi Arabia so that Embassy could contact the authorities while he was present in Saudi Arabia.
c) to approach the Saudi Labour Office of Labour Court.
d) to make a complaint before Saudi Arabian Immigration Authorities at exit point regarding forceful repatriation, if any.”
This Court finds force in the contentions raised by
the 1st and 2nd respondents. As the grievances of the petitioner could not have been taken by the Embassy
W.P.(C) No. 27814 of 2004
..4..
under the provisions of any bilateral labour contract, mutual legal assistance treaty or extradition treaty, the claims of the petitioner now raised against the 1st and 2nd respondents are bound to fail.
Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE
bka/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Government of India or Embassy of India was liable for negligence and dereliction of duty in redressing the petitioner's labour grievance in Saudi Arabia.
Whether the writ court can compel a diplomatic mission to extract results from a labour dispute involving a private foreign employer.
Whether the petitioner's failure to approach the Saudi Labour Court bars his claim for compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Thankamani
Union of India
Secretary (Labour)/Labour Attache
General Manager, Abdullah A.M. Al-Khodari Sons Company
Secretary to Government, Norka
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
