Tue Jul 15 07:43:11 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the text, followed by a rewritten version as a news article:
**Summary:**
The Madras High Court has put a hold on a previous ruling that ordered the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai to reinstate a former employee with back pay. The court will now examine whether diplomatic missions fall under the definition of “industry” according to the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The case originated from a petition by a former Consular Assistant who claimed wrongful termination. The initial ruling stated that foreign missions must comply with Indian labor laws for Indian employees, citing the Vienna Convention, but the High Commission is appealing, arguing that it is not an “industry” and that the employee’s contract simply expired.
**News Article:**
**Madras High Court Halts Reinstatement Order, Will Examine Labor Laws and Diplomatic Missions**
**CHENNAI, July 15, 2025** – The Madras High Court has stayed a previous order compelling the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission in Chennai to reinstate a former employee and provide back wages. A Division Bench, comprised of Justices R. Subramanian and K. Surender, issued the interim stay pending a detailed examination of whether diplomatic missions can be classified as an “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
The case stems from a petition filed by T. Senthilkumari, a former Consular Assistant who worked at the Deputy High Commission from 2008 to 2018. She claimed wrongful termination and sought reinstatement.
A single judge had previously ruled in February that foreign diplomatic missions operating in India must adhere to Indian labor and social security laws when employing Indian nationals. The judge cited the Diplomatic Relations (Vienna Convention) Act of 1972, which incorporates the Vienna Convention, stating that only foreign nationals working in diplomatic missions are exempt from the host country’s social security laws. The initial ruling also stated that Indian employees do not need central government permission to sue a diplomatic mission in an industrial tribunal.
However, the Sri Lankan Deputy High Commission, represented by counsel G. Kalyan Jhabak, appealed the ruling, arguing that an embassy or high commission cannot be considered an “industry” as defined by the I.D. Act. The Deputy High Commission also asserted that no “master-servant relationship” existed with Senthilkumari, claiming her temporary contract simply expired in December 2018.
The High Court’s decision to review the case raises important questions about the application of Indian labor laws to foreign diplomatic missions and could have significant implications for Indian nationals employed in such institutions. The court is expected to hear arguments on the matter in the coming weeks.
First Piper 