Delhi High Court Reinstates Discrimination Suit Against Republic of Italy

Court Overturns Rejection of Plaint, Asserts Cause of Action Exists for Indian-Origin Embassy Employees

The Delhi High Court, in a significant judgment, has reinstated a civil suit filed by Indian-origin employees of the Italian Embassy in New Delhi against the Republic of Italy, overturning a previous order that dismissed the suit due to an alleged lack of cause of action. The suit, initially rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, claimed discrimination in pay and benefits between Indian and Italian-origin employees, all governed by the Italian Presidential Decree No. 103 of 2000.

The appellants, who were locally recruited, argued that despite performing similar roles and meeting the same eligibility criteria as their Italian-origin counterparts, they were subjected to lower pay and fewer benefits. The suit sought a declaration of contravention of Article 157 of the Presidential Decree, which mandates equal remuneration for employees within the same homogeneous category, and demanded arrears amounting to approximately Rs. 2.11 crore.

The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Renu Bhatnagar, found that the learned Single Judge had improperly applied the law regarding the rejection of plaints. The Court clarified that a plaint can only be rejected if it fails to disclose a cause of action on its face, not based on the court's premature judgment on the merits of the case. The Bench emphasized that triable issues involving complex factual and legal nuances must proceed to trial.

The judgment further addressed the issue of sovereign immunity and limitation, ruling that the suit was not barred by limitation due to the recurring nature of the cause of action. The Court dismissed the respondents' plea for sovereign immunity at this stage, allowing the suit to proceed to trial for a comprehensive adjudication on merits.

By setting aside the Impugned Order, the Delhi High Court has allowed the plaintiffs to present evidence supporting their claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of factual disputes such as job classification and cost of living differences. This decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that claims of discrimination and inequality are given a fair trial.

Bottom Line:

Rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC - Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected merely on the hypothesis of non-existence of cause of action when the plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action requiring trial and evidence.

Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order VII Rule 11(a), Section 86

Rita Solomon v. Republic of Italy, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2817080