She ceased a ruling obliging his employer to pay 52,000 dirhams

The Federal Supreme Council supports the ineligibility of an employee for the "qualification" and the nature of the work

The Federal Supreme Court overturned a ruling requiring an employer to pay 52,000 dirhams dues to an employee whose service was terminated, as it confirmed that the Court of Appeal did not respond to the defendant's defense that the plaintiff was not entitled to the academic qualification bonus on the deed of non-equivalence to the certificate, as well as the allowance for the nature of work on a document that The job you're transferred to does not have this allowance.

In the details, an employee filed an administrative case, in which he demanded to oblige his workplace to cancel the decision to terminate his service and return him to his job and to award him compensation for unfair dismissal, and to pay the differences in the academic qualification allowance for 57 months, and the differences in the nature of work allowance allowance.

In his lawsuit, the plaintiff stated that he worked for the defendant as an executive secretary from 2012 until his service was terminated in 2019 without a legitimate reason, and the administration did not pay him his dues according to the law.

The court of first instance ruled to dismiss the case, then the Court of Appeal ruled to cancel the first instance judgment and the plaintiff’s judgment of 52 thousand and 500 dirhams, and the employer did not accept this ruling, so it challenged it before the Federal Supreme Court.

In her appeal, the defendant said that “the judgment violated the law, as he established his judiciary on what the case expert obtained in his report from the employee’s entitlement to pay the scientific qualification bonus and the work nature allowance. The administrative decision granting the employee’s academic qualification allowance was suspended by a decision of the Board of Directors. In addition to the fact that the employee is not entitled to this allowance, because he is not equivalent to the academic certificate that allows him to be entitled to it, in addition to that he is also not entitled to this allowance according to the rules regulated by the personnel affairs system, and he is also not entitled to the allowance for the nature of work, because it is a transfer from his original job to a job. Other, and he was housed on it, and this job does not include an allowance for the nature of work.

For its part, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal of the employer, explaining that the expert’s task is limited to investigating the reality in the case and expressing an opinion on technical issues without extending his research to legal issues, as the judge personally examines the legal issues and expresses his opinion on them, which are At the core of his work.

The court indicated that the documents established that the employer adhered to legal texts that the plaintiff was not entitled to the allowance for the nature of work and the allowance for academic qualification, which are legal issues that the court is bound by its mandate to examine itself and give its opinion on it, and as the Court of Appeal referred to the expert's report, and took from it Supporting her decision without examining those issues herself and making her opinion on them, and content with what she mentioned in the records of her judgment, so she would have abandoned the performance of her job and did not look into what the employer clung to, which is what defects her judgment as null and requires it to be revoked.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news