In the Name of His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the United Arab Emirates / Ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation – Labor Chamber

In the session held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on 29 Dhu al-Hijjah 1446 AH, corresponding to 25/06/2025 AD

Presided over by Judge: Zuhair bin Ahmed

With the membership of Judge: Othman Makram

And the membership of Judge: Tariq Fathi

The case number: 44-2025-Labor-C-R-Q-AD Labor Main Branch

Filed on: 25/05/2025

Subject: ...

After hearing the arguments, reviewing the documents, and deliberation, the following judgment was issued:

Reasons

Whereas the appeal has fulfilled its formal requirements.

And whereas the facts, as they appear from the appealed judgment and all other documents, are that the plaintiff (the appellant) filed case No. 181/2025 Labor (Simple) Abu Dhabi against the defendant (the respondent) seeking in his final claims an order for her to pay his labor entitlements, which consist of his late wages totaling (400,000) AED, notice pay of (40,000) AED, and compensation for arbitrary dismissal of (120,000) AED, and to provide him with a certificate of experience, with the judgment to be made immediately enforceable without bond. In support of his claim, he stated that he joined the respondent's employment on 31/05/2024 in the position of .... with a basic and gross salary of (40,000) AED and remained in his job until 08/01/2025, when the respondent notified him of the termination of his service without a legitimate reason and without paying his dues, which led to the lawsuit. The case was heard as established in the session minutes, during which the parties exchanged their defenses and arguments. On 15/04/2025, the court ruled to oblige the respondent to pay the appellant the amount of (292,000) AED for his late wages and (40,000) AED for notice pay, making the total awarded amount (332,000) AED, which the respondent was ordered to pay, and also ordered her to provide him with a certificate of experience, and rejected the remaining claims. The defendant company appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 137 of 2025 Labor Appeal Abu Dhabi, and on 14/05/2025, the court ruled to set aside the appealed judgment and to declare the labor court incompetent to hear the case due to the appellant's failure to obtain a work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, which divests him of the status of a worker as stipulated in the Labor Law, making the labor court incompetent to hear his claim. The appellant challenged this judgment by way of cassation in the present appeal. The appeal was presented to this court in chambers, and as it was deemed worthy of consideration, a hearing was scheduled.

Whereas the appellant's sole ground of appeal against the appealed judgment is the error in applying the law, flawed reasoning, and defective causality when it concluded that the labor court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the documents were devoid of a special work permit for him or a work contract authenticated by the competent administrative authority – the Ministry.

---

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Labor Chamber

Annex to Judgment No. 44-2025-Labor-C-R-Q-AD

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation – contrary to what is stated in the documents proving the existence of an employment relationship between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the law that granted the worker the right to prove the existing employment relationship between him and the employer by all means of proof, according to the text of Article (8/2) of Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021 regarding the regulation of labor relations. The decisive evidence presented in the case, which the appellant relies on, proves the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent that lasted for 7 months and 9 days, and that the agreed-upon salary was a total of (40,000) AED per month, according to the respondent's own declaration signed by its owner. This is in addition to the salary statement bearing the latter's signature, which shows the appellant's name as number (6) under the job title.... and shows the start date of his employment at the company as 01/06/2024. Furthermore, the termination email sent to him by the respondent on 08/01/2025 confirms the existence of an employment relationship between the parties and that the latter had decided to terminate that relationship and notified him of its decision. Also proven is the payment voucher issued by the respondent to the appellant for a financial reward of (40,000) AED for May 2024, in addition to the WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the appellant and the respondent's employees regarding work, of which the appellant submitted examples. These all confirm the interaction and communication between him and the respondent's management. All this evidence collectively proves the existence of a fully-fledged employment relationship between him and the respondent. Therefore, the appealed judgment, by contradicting all these documents and concluding that no employment relationship existed between the parties on the grounds that the appellant did not have a work license from the official authorities, and thus the labor court lacked jurisdiction, has contradicted the established facts in the documents and is marred by flawed reasoning, leading to an error in the application of the law, which renders it defective and requires its cassation.

Whereas this challenge is valid, as the text of Article Three of the Decision of the Head of the Judicial Department No. (18) of 2025 concerning the Abu Dhabi Labor Court states that ((The Abu Dhabi Labor Court shall have jurisdiction to hear labor lawsuits and disputes, and its jurisdiction shall include the following disputes: 1/ All labor lawsuits filed by or against workers, whether the establishment is registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation or not. 2/ All labor lawsuits filed by or against domestic workers. 3/ All lawsuits and disputes arising from the application of the provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the regulation of labor relations, and Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2022 concerning domestic workers. 4/ All disputes and lawsuits filed by or against workers regarding wages and entitlements arising from the employment relationship. 5/ All labor appeals filed against judgments issued by the court of first instance, judgments and orders issued by enforcement judges, and provisional and summary judgments. 6/ Enforcement of judgments and judicial orders issued by the court.)). This indicates that the Emirati legislator has given the labor court comprehensive and substantive jurisdiction in all matters related to labor lawsuits brought by or against workers, so that the adjudication thereof is exclusively by that court, to ensure uniformity of opinion and to prevent the fragmentation of labor disputes among different courts according to their jurisdictions, which would burden the worker and hinder him from obtaining his rights in the best and quickest manner with the most guarantees. Given that, and as the appellant had submitted documents to the court to prove the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent – regardless of the opinion on them – and these documents included a copy of the email sent to him by the respondent informing him of the termination of his service effective from January 8, 2025, and asking him to contact the person in charge of financial affairs at the company to receive his financial dues and hand over custody, devices, and related papers in his possession, and he also submitted a copy of the payroll statement issued by the company bearing the signature of its owner, which includes the appellant's name, his job, the date he started work at the company, and his designated salary. He also submitted a copy of a voucher dated 31/5/2025 with No. 003 for the payment of a financial reward to him in the amount of (40,000) AED for his work during the month of May/2024, bearing the signature of its general manager..., and a copy of the list of names and emails of the company's employees, which includes his name among its employees with the title of sector leader. These documents, submitted by the appellant and relied upon for their significance, suggest the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent – which the latter did not deny or claim to be incorrect – yet the court disregarded examining them and stating the truth therein, based on its conclusion that the appellant lacked the status of a worker due to his failure to obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, from which it concluded its lack of jurisdiction to hear the case. Since it is established by Decision No. (18) of 2025 that the labor court is assigned comprehensive and absolute jurisdiction to decide on all lawsuits filed by or against workers, these lawsuits – regardless of the opinion on them – fall within the jurisdiction of the labor court. Therefore, the appealed judgment, in considering the labor court not competent to hear the case – while it is within its jurisdiction as decided by the aforementioned law – has erred in applying the law. However, in application of the provisions of Article 6 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021 regarding the regulation of labor relations, which required...

---

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Labor Chamber

Annex to Judgment No. 44-2025-Labor-C-R-Q-AD

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

the worker to obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation and prohibiting him from performing any work in the country before obtaining the said permit. It also prohibited the employer from hiring or employing any worker unless a permit for that is obtained from the concerned authority. Since it is established from the documents that the said permit was not obtained, this results in the appellant lacking the status of a worker and thus not benefiting from the protections provided by the Labor Law for workers. Consequently, the Labor Court, although competent to hear the claims presented by the appellant - due to the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent - does not apply the provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021 on the regulation of labor relations. Instead, it adjudicates according to the Civil Law, as the relationship between the parties falls outside the scope of the Labor Law - due to the appellant's failure to obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry - to benefit from the protections provided by the Labor Law, which he is not entitled to for not complying with the required legal procedures, and he is also required to pay the civil court fee. As the appealed judgment ruled that the Labor Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case - despite its jurisdiction to hear it - it erred in applying the law, which necessitates its cassation and a new ruling on its jurisdiction to decide the case, provided that the applicable law is the Civil Law and not the Labor Law.

Whereas the subject of Appeal No. 137 of 2025 is ready for judgment, and this court has concluded that the Labor Court has jurisdiction to decide on the claims presented in the lawsuit based on the Civil Law and not the Labor Law. Therefore, it rules to set it aside in what it decided and rules again on the jurisdiction to hear the case as will be stated in the operative part.

For these reasons

The Court has ruled:

To fully quash the appealed judgment and ordered the respondent to pay the fees and expenses, including one thousand dirhams for the appellant's attorney fees, and ordered the return of the security deposit to him. In the matter of Appeal No. 137 of 2025, it ruled to set aside its decision regarding the Labor Court's lack of jurisdiction to hear the case and ruled again for its jurisdiction and remands the appeal to the court that issued the appealed judgment to decide on its merits based on the Civil Law after charging the court fee, and ordered the appellant to pay the costs.

---

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Labor Chamber

Annex to Judgment No. 44-2025-Labor-C-R-Q-AD

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

Unofficial digital copy