"Cassation": It is not permissible to appoint a worker under probation more than once

360,000 dirhams compensation for a doctor who was fired

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi ruled, partially reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal which obligated a medical center to pay a doctor 403,542 dirhams, and the court ruled to revoke the judgment in the part related to late wages, and reduce it to the total amount spent at 360 thousand and 209 dirhams, instead of 403,542 dirhams .

In the details, a doctor filed a lawsuit against her previous employer, a "medical center", in which she demanded the ruling obliging him to pay her 125 thousand and 906 dirhams late wages and the commission due to her, an amount of 65 thousand dirhams, a warning allowance, 19 thousand and 500 dirhams in lieu of leave, and 26 thousand dirhams And 944 dirhams end-of-service bonus and 195,000 dirhams in compensation for unfair dismissal, material and moral damage, and his obligation to deliver her a certificate of experience and a return ticket, indicating its association with the defendant center with an indefinite work contract with a monthly wage of 65,000 dirhams (basic 35,000 dirhams), and that He terminated her service without warning and without a legitimate reason and did not fulfill her rights, while the defendant's center submitted a temporary request to compel the plaintiff to return to him 20 thousand dirhams that he lied with.

After delegating an expert in the original case, the court ruled that the respondent was entitled to an amount of 403 thousand and 542 dirhams, the value of late wages, a warning allowance, a leave allowance, an end of service bonus, and compensation for unfair dismissal, and obligated the defendant to perform it and deliver her a certificate of end of work and a ticket to return to her home Unless she joined another employer, and both the commission and compensation requests for material and moral damage were rejected, and the contingent request was ruled rejected.

The Center did not accept the ruling, so he appealed it before the Court of Appeal, and the court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the appealed judgment, so the Center appealed the ruling by way of cassation, and mourned the appealed judgment in the wrong application of the law, as it ruled that the respondent was entitled to the warning allowance, the end of service bonus and compensation for unfair dismissal. Pointing out that he warns the respondent against her and uses his legitimate right to terminate her service for her violation of work controls and her lack of commitment to sign the attendance and departure record and her lack of commitment to work during the entire daily working hours, which does not have the characteristic of abuse in terminating her services, in addition to his dispensing with the services of the respondent during the trial period And the test stipulated in the second contract concluded with her before the lapse of six months, which deprives her of her right to a warning, end-of-service reward and compensation, while the respondent medical officer submitted a response note that she concluded with a request to reject the appeal.

For its part, the Court of Cassation clarified in the merits of its ruling that the appellant's awareness of the part related to the termination of the respondent's service during the probation period and the response in its part related to warning and unfair dismissal, is not valid, noting that the Law on Regulating Labor Relations permitted the appointment of a worker under probation for a period not exceeding six months The employer has the right to dispense with the worker's services during this period without notice and without the end of service bonus, and it is not permissible to appoint the worker under probation more than once with one employer, and if the worker successfully passed the probation period and continued to work, that period must be calculated from the period of service.

The court indicated that the Appellant Center obeyed the appealed ruling by wrongly applying the law when the respondent decided against it in the amount of 97 thousand and 500 dirhams late wages, while the respondent against it since the dawn of the case had approved a clear declaration before the trial court of two degrees that her late wages are 54 thousand and 167 dirhams and not The amount spent by the appealed judgment is a matter that defects it and deserves to be set aside, and the court ruled to annul the appealed judgment in a partial cassation regarding the delayed wages and rejected the appeal except for that.

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