RAM NARESH Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition raises a pure question of law which at the same time, is an interesting and important question of law.

(2.) THE petitioner was working with the Embassy of Columbia as a Gardener since 1980. The said Embassy, however, terminated his services on 19th February, 1992. The petitioner perceived this as his illegal termination inasmuch as according to him when he had put in 12 years of service in the Embassy, his services could not terminated without giving him any notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Even gratuity was denied to him. He wanted to raise dispute against his termination. His employer being Embassy of a sovereign country in India and thus a diplomatic mission, before taking legal action against such a party, the petitioner first wanted to raise the grievance departmentally. Therefore, through his union, he wrote a letter dated 11th March, 1992 to the Ambassador of Columbia complaining about his illegal termination and even sought his intervention to ensure that he is paid his dues in accordance with law or he is taken back in service. As no response was received, the petitioner now, by written letter dated 26th March, 1992, approached the Chief of Protocol, Ministry of External Affairs of the Union of India complaining about his illegal termination and seeking the intervention of the said Ministry to ensure payment of dues. It was followed by reminder dated 29th April, 1992. Ultimately, reply came from the Protocol Officer in the said Ministry on 8th May, 1992 to the effect that as per the stand of the Embassy of Columbia the services of the petitioner were not terminated by the Embassy but he left voluntarily as he did not want to sign on the terms and conditions offered by the Mission. The Embassy had also contended that it owed only one month salary to the petitioner which he refused to accept before leaving the Mission. The petitioner was not satisfied with this reply as according to him the aforesaid stand of the Embassy was unreasonable. He, accordingly, wrote back to the Government refuting the allegations of the Embassy and also contended that his termination was in violation of the guidelines issued by the Ministry to various Embassies. Thereafter, the petitioner even took up the matter with the Prime Minister for his intervention. Some correspondence went on between the External Affairs Ministry and the petitioner/his union and the Ministry conveying the petitioner again the stand of the Embassy that the petitioner had left his services voluntarily and his services were not terminated. This forced the petitioner to raise the industrial dispute against his purported termination. He submitted the statement of claim with the Conciliation Officer on 22nd December, 1993. The Conciliation Officer, however, did not take any effective steps on the statement of claim inspite of the petitioner/his union giving several reminders. Fed up with the inaction on the part of the respondents, present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

(3.) WHEN this matter came up for hearing after notice to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner was that provisions of Section 86 of the CPC or the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act, 1972 had no application and certain judgments were cited in support of this proposition. After hearing the parties, rule was issued on 11th October, 1995 and it would be apposite to reproduce that order: