Labor Claim for Unpaid Wages and Delay Interest

Dubai Courts

Dubai Court of First Instance

In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
In the Name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

In the public hearing held on Wednesday, August 20, 2025, at the headquarters of the Dubai Court of First Instance in Dubai,

Presided over by Judge: Hamdi Mahmoud Khalifa Tolba

In Case No. 990 of 2025, Labor Partial

Claimant: Maryam Salah Saleh Abdulrahman Al-Qurash
Defendant: Transparency Real Estate LLC

The Court Rendered the Following Judgment:

After reviewing the electronic file and hearing the pleadings:

Whereas the facts of the lawsuit and its documents are summarized in that the claimant instituted the proceedings against the defendant by means of a statement of claim filed with the court registry on 2025-05-29 and legally served, requesting primarily: to obligate the defendant to pay her an amount of (AED 34,000) representing the salary for the month of March and 21 days of April, along with legal interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim until full settlement. Subsidiarily: to refer the case for investigation to prove by witness testimony and directing the decisive oath to establish her entitlement to the amount of AED 34,000 as her wages for March and 21 days of April 2025, and obligating the defendant to pay fees and expenses. This is based on the assertion that she joined work with the defendant on 2025-01-21 pursuant to a job offer from the defendant to the claimant, who accepted full-time employment at a monthly salary of AED 20,000 (total gross and basic salary of AED 20,000) in addition to a 40% commission of the value of sales made by the claimant. She actually commenced work with the defendant, and on 2025-02-03, the defendant transferred her wages for the period worked in January in the amount of AED 9,333, and then transferred her salary for February in the amount of AED 20,000. However, it failed to transfer the claimant's salary for March, prompting her to resign from work on 2025-04-22, which led the claimant to file the present action seeking judgment for her aforementioned claims.

She submitted documents including copies of emails from the defendant's employee in charge of attendance and departure sent to the Human Resources department, a copy of the transfer notice of the claimant's salary for her work period in January and the salary for February, a copy of the request submitted by the claimant to the Head of the Labor Court to register the case, and copies of exchanged emails between the claimant and the defendant company.

Whereas the lawsuit was heard in hearings as established in its minutes, where the claimant appeared in person and the legal representative of the defendant appeared through an attorney. The defendant's representative submitted a memorandum responding to the action and concluding with the following requests: First: Dismissal of the present action for the following reasons: 1. The defendant argues for the dismissal of the action for lack of validity and proof. 2. The defendant argues for the dismissal of the action for failure to follow proper legal procedures in filing the labor action due to the absence of an employment relationship between the claimant and the defendant. 3. The defendant argues for dismissal due to the Labor Court's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction since there is no decision issued by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation referring the case to the Labor Court. 4. The defendant argues for dismissal due to the existence of a criminal complaint filed by the claimant against the owner of the defendant company, and that she filed the labor action due to previous disputes without presenting clear evidence and documents proving the validity of the claim, with obligating the claimant to pay fees, expenses, and attorney fees.

The claimant submitted an explanatory memorandum concluding primarily: To obligate the defendant to pay the claimant the salary arrears for (March 2025 and 22 days of April 2025) totaling AED 34,000 in addition to legal interest at 9% from the date of judicial claim...

...until full settlement. Subsidiarily: referring the lawsuit to investigation so that the claimant may prove by all methods of evidence, including witness testimony and presumptions, the existence of the labor relationship between the claimant and the defendant and her entitlement to salary arrears for March 2025 and salary arrears for 22 days of April 2025 totaling AED 34,000. As an extreme subsidiary measure: the claimant requests directing the decisive oath to the owner and manager of the defendant, named Ahmed Gamal Abdelsadek Mohamed, to take it in the following formula: "I swear by Almighty God that the claimant / Maryam Salah Saleh Abdulrahman Al-Qurash is not entitled to any amount of AED 34,000 or any part thereof from the defendant, Transparency Real Estate LLC, whether for the salary of March 2025 in full or for 22 days of April 2025, or for any work she performed for the benefit of the company or under its management or supervision in any capacity, and she is not entitled to any other amounts for any employment relationship that existed between us, and God is witness to what I say." Second: obligating the defendant to pay fees, expenses, and attorney fees. She submitted documents reviewed by the court. At the final pleading session, the claimant appeared and requested judgment, and the court decided to reserve the case for judgment in today's session.

Whereas the legal representative of the defendant appeared in the sessions, the judgment rendered in its regard is in-person (adversarial) pursuant to Article 54 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Whereas the court prefixes its judgment by stating that according to the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, establishing the employment relationship, its commencement, determining its duration, and arranging its consequences falls within the authority of the trial court (Labor Appeal No. 85 of 2005). In view of the above, and whereas the claimant asserted the existence of an employment relationship between her and the defendant starting from 2025-01-21 and ending on 2025-04-21, with a monthly salary of AED 20,000, and the defendant did not execute an employment contract, the court accepts what the claimant stated as it is consistent with the evidence submitted in the claimant's documents, including company attendance and departure logs indicating the claimant's attendance, in addition to the proven transfer of the claimant's salary for her work period in January and February in full, and the emails exchanged between the claimant and the company's accounting department acknowledging payment of the claimant's salary for March. Moreover, the defendant did not provide evidence to refute what the claimant stated. Consequently, the court concludes that the claimant's period of service with the defendant was three months, with a total gross salary of AED 20,000, and adds that the reason for the termination of the employment relationship is the claimant's resignation, and the court rules on the lawsuit accordingly.

Whereas regarding the defendant's defense of inadmissibility of the lawsuit for failure to take the correct legal procedures in filing a labor claim, and the defense of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction of the Labor Court due to the absence of a referral decision from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation to the Labor Court, this defense is invalid and refuted. The legislator defined the employment contract in Article (1) of the Decree-Law as: (Every agreement between an employer and an employee, whereby the latter undertakes to work in the service of the employer and under their supervision and guidance, in return for a wage that the employer undertakes to pay, according to the contract templates determined by the Executive Regulations of this Decree-Law). The definition of (Employee) in the same article states: (Every natural person authorized by the Ministry to work for an authorized establishment in the State, under the supervision and guidance of the employer). Work permit is also defined as: (A document issued by the Ministry permitting a natural person to work for an authorized establishment). Article (6) of the Decree-Law stipulates that: (Work may not be practiced in the State, and an employer may not recruit or employ any worker, except after obtaining a work permit from the Ministry in accordance with the provisions of this Decree-Law and its Executive Regulations). Individual labor disputes are defined as (Any dispute between an employer and an individual worker concerning this Decree-Law, its Executive Regulations, and the decisions issued in implementation thereof). All of this demonstrates that the worker to whom the provisions and terms of the employment contract apply is the worker licensed by the Ministry to work for an authorized establishment in the State. Thus, the definition of an employee under this Decree-Law ceases to apply in the absence of a work permit, and the concept of an employee applies to them according to the provisions of Articles (897 to 923) under Chapter Three - Part Two of the Civil Transactions Law (Federal Law No. 5 of 1985, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 30 of 2020). Consequently, the provisions of the latter law apply to the work relationship between the non-compliant worker and the employer. In other words, all benefits granted and prescribed under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 regarding Regulation of Labor Relations do not apply to the relationship between the two parties.

And consequently, the claim in the present lawsuit is governed by the provisions of the Civil Transactions Law pursuant to Chapter Two of Part Three thereof. Therefore, it is not required to resort to the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation prior to filing the action, and the defense stands without merit and is liable for dismissal without the need to state so in the operative part of the judgment.

Whereas regarding the claimant's request for salary for the month of March and 21 days of April 2025, according to Article 912 of the Civil Transactions Law, wages are a right of the employee against the employer in return for performing the agreed-upon work. The purport of Article 22 of Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 on the Regulation of Labor Relations and Article 16 of Cabinet Decision No. 1 of 2022 regarding the Executive Regulations of this Decree-Law is that the employer is obligated to determine the amount and type of wage in the employment contract, failing which the court determines it, and to pay wages to workers on their due dates through the Wages Protection System (WPS) or any other approved systems, and the employer is tasked with proving the payment of workers' wages and providing evidence thereof. In view of the above, and since the defendant has not submitted proof of payment of the claimant's salary for March and her period of work in April, the court rules to obligate it to pay the claimant the amount of AED 34,000.

Whereas regarding the claim for legal interest, it is established that whenever the object of the obligation is a sum of money of a known amount at the time of demand and the debtor delays in discharging it, the debtor is obligated to pay delay interest from the date of judicial claim, even if the debtor disputes its amount. The requirement that the amount be known at the time of demand for delay interest to run from the date of judicial claim means that the claimed amount is not a form of compensation subject to the judge's absolute discretion. Since the claimed delay interest constitutes compensation for damage sustained by the creditor resulting from the debtor's delay in performing the obligation, and judicial custom has settled on calculating delay interest at 5% unless agreed otherwise, the court awards interest at the aforementioned rate from the date of the judicial claim filed on 2025-05-29, as set forth in the operative part of this judgment.

Whereas regarding court expenses, the court obligates the defendant to pay them pursuant to Article 133 of the Civil Procedure Law.

For These Reasons

The Court ruled in-person (adversarially):

• To obligate the defendant to pay the claimant an amount of (AED 34,000) thirty-four thousand dirhams, and legal interest at the rate of 5% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment, and obligated the defendant to pay the expenses.

Signature
Judge / Hamdi Mahmoud Khalifa Tolba

The bench indicated at the beginning of this judgment is the one that heard the pleadings, reserved the case for judgment, issued the judgment, and signed it, whereas the bench that pronounced it is constituted in accordance with the pronouncement session minutes.