Similar to a mistake in the application and based on the appeal of the Attorney General

"Dubai discrimination" overturns a labor ruling because of the "decisive oath"

The Court of Cassation overturned a judgment issued by the Dubai Court of Appeal in a labor dispute, based on the appeal of the Dubai Public Prosecutor, Counselor Issam Issa Al-Humaidan, based in its judgments on the fact that the Appeals Court’s ruling erroneously applied the law regarding the decisive oath.

In detail, an employee filed a lawsuit against the law firm in which he was working to compel him to pay 75 thousand dirhams on the basis of saying that he joined work for him in November 2016 with a basic wage of 5000 dirhams and a total of 7000 dirhams per month, and he remained in his work until he was arbitrarily dismissed, while he resided. The law firm (the defendant) has a counterclaim against the worker demanding that he pay him an amount of 68,902 dirhams on the basis that he resigned without prior notice.

After joining the two cases, the court of first instance ruled in the first case to obligate the defendant's law firm to pay 12,000 dirhams and the return ticket, and in the second case to oblige the defendant worker in it to pay the law firm an amount of 42 thousand and 166 dirhams.

The two parties appealed to the Court of Appeal, and after joining them, the Court of Appeal decided to amend the amount sentenced to the worker in favor of the employer to become 41 thousand dirhams.

For his part, the year submitted a request to the Public Prosecutor to appeal the cassation of the judgment, as it is one of the provisions that the litigants may not appeal against by cassation due to their issuance in a claim with a quorum of less than 500 thousand dirhams, so the request was studied by the head of the Civil Prosecution, Tariq Ahmed Al-Naqbi, and it was found that the judgment of the appeal is against the law It was marred by a mistake in application, so the Dubai Attorney General agreed to appeal it to the Court of Cassation.

After hearing the appeal, the Court of Cassation ruled to revoke the appeal judgment, and referred the case to the court to adjudicate it again establishing its judiciary that the appealed judgment had erred in applying the law as it applied a legal rule that does not apply to the true reality in the case regarding the decisive oath, where the appealed judgment was based on reasons His judgment that the owner of the law firm had sworn the decisive oath directed to him by the worker that the latter had submitted his resignation by his own will, and was not motivated by pressure from him, and this is contrary to the proven fact in the lawsuit that the owner of the office had returned the oath directed to him by the worker who took the oath that was rejected He must have what he has left to work in the rule of unfair dismissal, and that necessitated a ruling for him with his requests for the compensation he is entitled to for terminating an unlimited work contract according to Article 123 of the Law on Regulating Labor Relations, the warning allowance as well as the end of service bonus and the leave allowance that he is entitled to, as an effect One of the legal implications of his crucial oath was that he was motivated by his employer to resign.

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