The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi rejected an appeal filed by an employee (Arab) against the owner of the institution in which he worked, demanding the assignment of an expert committee to assess his share in the projects and institutions belonging to the complainant against him, and to calculate all his entitlements to the appellant against him, pointing out that he joined the institution. As a result of his diligence and good management, he owed his debts and expanded and became other branches, and rejected the counter-appeal filed by the owner of the institution against the complainant, as well as the cancellation of the appellate verdicts, and the judiciary again not to accept the cases.
The appellant filed a lawsuit requesting the assignment of a committee of experts to evaluate his share in projects and institutions, thus calculating all his entitlements to the appellant against him, settling the account between the parties and obliging the appellant with the appellant's dues on the basis that he had been working since 1991 in the institution owned by the appellant against him, and was in debt. To others at the time amounting to more than 600 thousand dirhams, and that he worked hard in the institution and paid all its debts and agreed with the appellant against him to add other institutions and companies to them, provided that the appellant 10% of the said institution or any institutions, companies or projects created from those profits, and For this agreement was made Starch several other institutions.
In his case, the appellant pointed out that due to external circumstances, he was deported outside the country and tried to obtain his dues, including labor, but the appellant refused, and then filed the case. The court appointed an expert in the case and after filing his report, the appellant filed a counterclaim requesting the judgment to oblige the appellant. To pay him five million and 169 thousand and 409 dirhams with legal interest by 12% from the date of the judicial claim until the full payment.
The Court of First Instance ruled in the original lawsuit to oblige the employer to pay the employee 345 thousand and 574 dirhams with the legal interest of 5% from the date of the judgment until the full reimbursement, and to reject the corresponding lawsuit filed by the owner of the institution, who appealed this ruling in the Court of Appeal, as he appealed The court appealed and appointed a new tripartite committee of experts to respond to objections to the report of the previous committee.
After the last committee filed its report, the court decided to amend the appealed judgment, in the original case, and to reinstate the obligation of the employer to pay the employee an amount of AED 327,675 instead of the amount stipulated in the first instance judgment, with a delay interest of 5%. Annually, from the date of the judicial claim until full payment, and by canceling the appealed judgment in the rejection of the counterclaim and reinstating the employee's obligation to pay the defendant an amount of AED 1,171,848, with a delay interest of 5% per annum from the date of the claim to full payment. The two opponents did not accept the verdict N, and you appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court of Cassation explained that the evidence of the lawsuit and documents that the relationship between the parties to the collapse is a work relationship in accordance with the fixed contract and its annexes, and the papers are completely free of the existence of a partnership relationship between the parties, but did not claim the same, which was confirmed by the report of the first expert and thereafter Thus, the dispute shall be as such whether it relates to the original case filed by the worker or the incidental application (the counterclaim) filed by the enterprise owner, related to the rights arising from the contract of employment and the contracts of its complementary agreement, and the law regulating labor relations, From what is useful Resort worker or the employer's complaint to the competent labor administration before the establishment of the case or the bidder submitting the application, which arranges not to accept this lawsuit and that request.
Court of Cassation: «shows the absence of lawsuit documents and documents, from any relationship between the parties to the collapse».