A Worker's Fight for Justice After a Debilitating Injury

In a case that underscores the critical distinction between work-related injuries and general illness, the Al Ain Labor Court of Appeal delivered a nuanced judgment, partially overturning a lower court's decision. The case involved a laborer who suffered a severe arm fracture and sought significant compensation from his employer, a stone works company. While his primary claim for work injury compensation was ultimately denied due to a lack of definitive proof, the appellate court carved out a crucial victory for the worker, awarding him statutory sick leave pay and affirming an employer's wage obligations even in the absence of a proven work-related incident.

📋 Case Background: A Career-Threatening Injury

The dispute began when a worker, employed by a stone works sole proprietorship since August 2023, experienced a life-altering event. In mid-January 2025, while on the job, he sustained a grievous injury—a fracture of the right humerus bone. The medical consequences were severe, leading to radial nerve palsy and wrist drop, conditions that effectively incapacitated him. The worker alleged that despite the severity of his condition, his employer failed to provide medical insurance, refused to cover the substantial costs of his treatment and surgery, and ceased paying his wages from the day of the incident.

Feeling abandoned and facing mounting financial pressure, the worker initiated legal proceedings after an unsuccessful attempt at mediation through the Ministry of Human Resources. He filed a lawsuit demanding a total of AED 93,000, a sum intended to cover his unpaid wages and provide compensation for the debilitating work injury he had suffered. He supported his claim with a medical report from a private hospital detailing the fracture and subsequent nerve damage.

⚖️ The Initial Court's Ruling: A Procedural Impasse

In the Court of First Instance, the employer's representative contested the claim. While not disputing the employment relationship, the company's defense hinged on a single, critical point: the worker had not proven that the injury occurred during and as a result of his work. They argued that without this causal link, the company was not liable for work injury compensation.

To resolve this crucial question of fact, the presiding judge ordered a forensic medical examination. An expert was to be appointed to determine the nature, cause, and date of the injury, and to assess whether it had resulted in a permanent disability directly attributable to his employment. However, this directive created an insurmountable hurdle for the injured worker. He was ordered to pay the deposit for the expert's fees, a sum he could not afford. He argued that his financial destitution was a direct result of the unpaid wages and the crushing medical bills he had to bear personally—expenses he believed his employer was legally obligated to cover.

His inability to pay the fee was interpreted by the court as a failure to proceed with his evidentiary burden. Consequently, on December 22, 2025, the Court of First Instance dismissed his case entirely. The judge ruled that the worker had failed to substantiate his claim that the incident was a work injury, and without the expert medical evidence, the court could not rule in his favor. The worker was, however, exempted from court fees.

⚡ The Appeal: A Plea for Substantive Justice

Undeterred, the worker appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court had erred by allowing a procedural requirement to obstruct substantive justice. His appeal was built on several key arguments:

• Humanitarian Grounds: He contended that his failure to pay the expert fee was not a choice but a necessity, a direct consequence of the employer's alleged breach of duty under Article 37 of the UAE Labor Law, which mandates employer responsibility for treatment costs in work injuries.

• Alternative Evidence: He informed the court that he had eyewitnesses to the accident but lacked the financial means to transport them to testify.

• Statutory Sick Pay: Crucially, he argued that even if the injury was not deemed work-related, he was still a sick employee unable to work and was therefore entitled to statutory sick pay for his period of absence as stipulated by law.

During the appeal hearings, the owner of the company personally appeared and clarified that the worker's residency was not finalized due to pre-existing fines, but confirmed he was employed and had not been officially terminated. The worker reiterated that he was injured at the Al Hayer work site and that a police report had been filed.

Final Verdict: A Split Decision

The Court of Appeal conducted a thorough review and delivered a split decision that carefully navigated the complexities of UAE Labor Law.

On the matter of the work injury compensation, the appellate court concurred with the lower court. It reaffirmed the legal principle that the burden of proof rests on the claimant. The private hospital's medical report was insufficient to legally establish the injury as work-related, and without the court-ordered forensic report, the claim remained unproven. The court stated, "The mere occurrence of an injury to an employee is not, by itself, sufficient to classify it as a work injury... a direct causal link to the work must be established." Thus, the rejection of the AED 93,000 compensation claim was upheld.

However, the court took a different view regarding the claim for unpaid wages. It found that the lower court had erred in dismissing this part of the claim. The evidence clearly showed an ongoing employment relationship and an employee absent due to a medical condition. Applying Article 31 of the Labor Law, which governs sick leave for non-work-related illnesses, the court ruled that the worker was entitled to statutory sick pay. The court calculated his dues based on his monthly salary of AED 700:

• First 15 days of absence: Full pay (AED 350).

• Next 30 days of absence: Half pay (AED 350).

⚖️ The Judgment

The Al Ain Court of Appeal partially overturned the initial judgment. It ordered the stone works company to pay the worker a total of AED 700 in sick leave wages. The remainder of the lower court's decision, specifically the denial of work injury compensation, was confirmed. The court also dismissed the appeal against the company's owner personally, as no claims had been specifically directed at him. The employer was ordered to bear all legal costs for both the initial and appellate proceedings.