London:
There could be a new immunity debacle brewing for India. Last year, the country's tourism office in London lost a case against a former employee who says he was unfairly dismissed. The office was instructed to compensate the employee to the tune of over 91 lakh rupees, but it never paid the amount.
Sanjay Merchery says he was dismissed because as an accountant he knew too many "uncomfortable details" about how funds were being spent in the office. Tourism office lawyers say he was dismissed because allegations of corruption were investigated against him.
But Mr Merchery denies these charges. "I had no signing authority at all. If there is a proposal it goes directly to the director and assistant director and I have to do the remaining work, that's it. How on earth can I be responsible for anything? If there is anything why can't they put an investigation into it?" he told NDTV.
"It was a long and tough fight against the mighty government of India. I finally got a verdict in my favour in May 2012. It was completely in my favour and said that the dismissal was unfair. After a remedy hearing the court announced an amount of 71,000 pounds which includes some wages that were not paid and 20,000 pounds for my solicitor fees," Mr Merchery said and added that compensation of 91,000 pounds or over 90 lakh rupees was never paid.
When a court tried to enforce this judgement, the tourism office obtained a stay saying that the property was owned by the Government of India and that's why it enjoyed state immunity. But does that mean that it can avoid paying a compensation claim for an unfair dismissal?
In June 2013, Mr Merchery says he approached a county court recover his dues. When bailiffs were sent to attach the property, the tourism office got a stay on the action.
No interviews in this matter were granted to NDTV by the Indian tourism office in London. According to legal documents available with NDTV, the tourist office's lawyers have also claimed diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention in addition to the state immunity it already enjoys.
But London-based Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that has the final say in the matter, ruled on October 3, 2013 that the tourism office premises "have not been accorded inviolability under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987."
"I think the Indian government should just pay the amount. It makes us look very bad abroad," said Sarosh Zaiwalla, a senior lawyer of Indian -origin, based in London.
Cases like these often shine the spotlight on anomalous nature of immunities enjoyed by offices abroad.