For her signature, acknowledging the end of the business relationship and receiving her rights

The "cassation" supports the refusal of the engineer’s request for compensation for a work injury

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation upheld an appeals ruling, which ruled to reject the engineer’s request for compensation for a work injury and to grant her a warning and leave allowance that she did not get during her work period, to sign the contestant acknowledging the end of the work relationship and receiving her rights from the company.

In detail, the Court of Cassation clarified that the appealed ruling established its court to reject the application to compensate the contestant for her affliction with a disease due to work, on the basis that there is no evidence that the disease described in the case papers would not have been exposed to him had it not been for her work, and as a result the refusal to compensate her for the material damages she said By obtaining as a result of her illness the absence of papers, evidence of the availability of the elements of tort

The court indicated that the worker's admission, after the end of the work relationship, to receive his rights that were entitled to him during the execution of his work contract is valid, as it is one of the financial rights that relate to the person of the owner, which is permissible for him to acknowledge receipt, pointing out that the appellant has approved the settlement letter - submitted to the court and signed by it. -, that she agrees to the sums that were separated by this book as a complete and final settlement of all her dues and benefits related to her work contract and added her acknowledgment that she does not have any other claims against the contested company and therefore does not have her again to claim that the rights she was entitled to during the establishment of the business relationship and request Wipe her out.

The court pointed out that what the appellant claimed of being subjected to coercion and threatening to terminate the work contract with an immediate effect of poor performance - would not lead to a similar one - and she is the vice-president and has experience in the field of engineering, to accept what she would not voluntarily accept, and thus her statement of forcing her to resign On the basis of unfounded, and since the preliminary judgment supported by the contested judgment concluded that the contestant was the one who, by her free will, put an end to the work relationship with resignation, and the judgment arranged for that to reject my request in lieu of warning and compensation for unfair dismissal, then it was correct in law.

The court affirmed that the appellant should be aware of the appealed ruling for not being answered by re-assigning a human resources expert to examine the damages that were caused to her and to find out what she claimed of the reason for her dismissal from work and to defame the judgment regarding its reliance on what the expert’s report concluded in determining the period of the balance of leaves that were not exhausted by the appellant. Upon the end of her service, it becomes unacceptable, and the court ruled not to accept the appeal and obligated the contestant to pay its expenses. 

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