Al-Ain court dismissed the case

A company accuses an employee of hiring his wife for 5 times the salary

Al-Ain Court confirmed that the wife's work contract was not proven to be sham.

archival

Al Ain Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by a company against an employee and his wife, in which it demanded that they be obligated to return 170,000 dirhams, the total salary that the wife unlawfully obtained, after the husband shamly employed her with a monthly salary of five times the original salary specified for this job grade in the company.

In the details, a company filed a lawsuit against an employee and his wife, demanding that they jointly pay an amount of 170,000 dirhams, and obligate them to legal interest, at a rate of 12%, while obligating them to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney fees, noting that the defendant abused the agency granted to him by the company for personal interests. For a purpose other than the one for which she was released, he hired his wife as a receptionist with a salary of 15,000 dirhams, despite the fact that female employees who work in the same job receive a salary of 3,000 dirhams.

The company indicated that the wife did not attend, did not start work, and her husband did not take any action against her, which proves the fictitiousness of the work contract. From her payroll statement, proof of his transfer to an exchange company, and a copy of a work contract for an employee of the company with the same job title, with a salary of 3000 dirhams.

During the consideration of the case, the defendants' defense submitted a memorandum, in which it held that the lawsuit was invalid, because the newspaper was not attached to the form approved by the Judicial Department, and the name of the client in the agency deed did not match the name in the lawsuit sheet, and also held that the court had no jurisdiction, because the wife's claim to refund the salaries that I received it from the company under an unlimited-term work contract, where the jurisdiction is held by the labor court and not the civil courts, in addition to the fact that the husband signed the work contract, and his signature is approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, as a sub-owner of the company, and under a judicial agency authorizing him to do so, which proves The company's allegations are untrue.

In the ruling, the court stated that it was established in the papers that the plaintiff granted the second defendant, under a special agency, the right to appoint employees and workers, terminate their services, sign their contracts, and pay their salaries, pointing out that the evidence in the papers is that the second defendant, and under this agency , he appointed the first defendant as a general reception clerk, and therefore he did not exceed the powers of the agency granted to him by the plaintiff company, as the appointment decision was within his absolute powers in this regard, and is not restricted by any restrictions.

The court confirmed that it had not been proven that it was sham and that the first defendant’s employment with the plaintiff company was not valid, and therefore the plaintiff had hastened filing this lawsuit before proving the sham contract before the competent courts, until it was decided for her to hold the agent’s actions accountable for the agency’s work, and the court ruled not to accept the lawsuit Against the first defendant, for filing it in a way other than the way established by law, and the failure to accept the case against the second defendant, for filing it prematurely, as indicated by the reasons, and obligating the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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