An employee demands 10 million dirhams in compensation for dismissal for “misconduct”
The plaintiff worked for the defendant company for 24 years.
archival
The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims, which rejected a claim for compensation of an employee in the amount of 10 million and 569 thousand dirhams for dismissal and defamation, and decided to accept the appeal in form and in the matter to support the appealed judgment.
An employee filed a lawsuit against a company, requesting that it pay her 10,569,000 dirhams in compensation for the material and moral damages she sustained as a result of her dismissal, defamation and slander, noting that she had been working for the defendant company for 24 years, and her services had ended without precedent. Warning, what prompted her to ask for compensation.
The plaintiff pointed out that the basis for compensation is based on tort liability in accordance with the Civil Transactions Law, while the present presented on behalf of the defendant a reply memorandum requesting the rejection of the case for the plaintiff's failure to follow the path established by the law regarding the regulation of labor relations and the failure to hear the case due to the passage of time, and the Court of First Instance decided to reject the case with Obligating the plaintiff to pay the expenses.
In the reasons for its refusal, the court clarified that the plaintiff is demanding compensation for material and moral damages for offending her or defamation and slandering the termination letter. The defendant, who stated the reason for the termination of the plaintiff’s services, by referring to the gross violations (egregious misconduct) that included negligence or willful actions, which may cause financial losses to the company, gross negligence or indifference in performing tasks, and unauthorized absences for a period of more than 20 Sporadic days in one year or more than seven consecutive days in one year, all of which do not contain indecent expressions as indicated by the plaintiff.
The court stated that the defendant relied on the texts of the articles in which the plaintiff's services were terminated, which is not an error in itself that justifies compensation, and the judiciary must also reject the case.
The plaintiff was not satisfied with this court and instituted her appeal.
The Court of Appeal indicated that the Court of First Instance was subjected to adjudication in the present litigation and decided to reject the case, and the appellant did not come up with a new defense before this court that changes the opinion of the case.
It ruled to accept the appeal in form and on the merits, upholding the appealed judgment.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news