Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Judgment on Labor Court Jurisdiction and Unlicensed Employment Claims

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

Judicial Department – Abu Dhabi

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation – Labor Court Division

In the public hearing held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on Wednesday, 29 Dhu al-Hijjah 1446 AH, corresponding to 25/06/2025 CE.

Presided over by Judge: Zouheir Ben Ahmed
Judge Member: Othman Makram
Judge Member: Tarek Fathy

Examined Case No.: 44-2025 Labor - MR - QA - Z Labor Main Headquarters
Registered on: 25/05/2025
Subject: Cassation Appeal

After hearing the oral pleadings, reviewing the case documents, and after due deliberation, the following judgment was rendered:

Grounds of Judgment

Whereas the appeal has satisfied all formal procedural requirements;

And whereas the facts—as apparent from the challenged judgment and the remaining records—are summarized in that the Plaintiff (Appellant) instituted Claim No. 181/2025 Labor (Minor) Abu Dhabi against the Defendant (Respondent), seeking an order compelling the latter to pay his labor dues, comprising overdue salaries in the total amount of AED 400,000, notice period pay in the amount of AED 40,000, compensation for arbitrary dismissal in the amount of AED 120,000, the delivery of an experience certificate, and the enforcement of the judgment with expedited execution without bail.

In support thereof, the Appellant stated that he joined the employment of the Respondent on 31/05/2024 in the position of [...] with a basic and gross monthly salary of AED 40,000 and remained in service until 08/01/2025, when the Respondent notified him of the termination of his services without lawful justification and failed to settle his financial entitlements, prompting the filing of the claim. The proceedings took their regular course as recorded in the hearing minutes, where both parties exchanged their pleadings and defenses. On 15/04/2025, the court rendered a judgment obligating the Respondent to pay the Appellant an amount of AED 292,000 for overdue salaries and AED 40,000 for notice pay, bringing the total awarded amount to AED 332,000, ordering the Respondent to pay it and hand over an experience certificate, while rejecting all other claims.

The condemned company appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 137 of 2025 Labor Appeal Abu Dhabi. On 14/05/2025, the court ruled to overturn the appealed judgment and ruled anew that the Labor Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the Appellant did not obtain a work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, which deprives him of the legal status of an employee under the Labor Law and divests the Labor Court of its jurisdiction over his claim. The Appellant challenged this ruling by way of cassation via the present appeal. The appeal was presented before this Court in chambers, and deeming it worthy of consideration, a hearing was scheduled for its examination.

And whereas the Appellant’s sole ground of appeal alleges that the contested judgment erred in applying the law, suffered from corruption in reasoning, and had deficiency in causation when it concluded that the Labor Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim due to the absence of a specific work permit or an employment contract authenticated by the competent administrative authority—the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation—

Human Resources and Emiratisation—contrary to the evident establishment in the records of an existing employment relationship between the parties pursuant to legal provisions that grant the employee the right to prove the employment relationship existing between him and the employer by all methods of evidence in accordance with Article (8/2) of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labor Relations.

The conclusive evidence submitted in the case, upon whose significance the Appellant relied, established an employment relationship between him and the Respondent lasting for a period of 7 months and 9 days, with an agreed gross monthly salary of AED 40,000 pursuant to an acknowledgment issued by the Respondent and signed by its owner [...], in addition to the payroll sheet signed by the latter, which established the inclusion of the Appellant's name under entry No. (6) under the job title of [...] indicating that he commenced his duties at the company on 01/06/2024. Furthermore, the termination email sent to him by the Respondent on 08/01/2025 confirmed the existence of an employment relationship between the two parties, that the Respondent decided to terminate that relationship, and that it served him notice of such decision. The payment voucher issued by the Respondent to the Appellant also confirmed the payment of a financial bonus of AED 40,000 for the month of May 2024, along with WhatsApp messages exchanged between the Appellant and the Respondent's employees concerning work duties—samples of which were submitted by the Appellant showing active interaction and communication between him and the administration of the Respondent. All such evidence conclusively proves the existence of a fully established employment relationship between him and the Respondent. Consequently, when the contested judgment disregarded all these documents and concluded that no employment relationship existed merely because the Appellant had not obtained an official work permit, thereby ruling that the Labor Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, it contradicted the established evidence in the record and fell into flawed inference and misapplication of the law, rendering it defective and warranting cassation.

Whereas this grievance is well-founded; Article 3 of Chairman of the Judicial Department Decision No. (18) of 2025 concerning the Abu Dhabi Labor Court provides that:

"The Abu Dhabi Labor Court shall have jurisdiction to hear labor claims and disputes. Its jurisdiction shall encompass the following disputes:
1. All labor claims filed by or against workers, whether the establishment is registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation or not registered with the Ministry.
2. All labor claims filed by or against domestic workers.
3. All claims and disputes arising from the application of the provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 Regulating Labor Relations and Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2022 on Domestic Workers.
4. All disputes and claims filed by or against workers regarding wages and entitlements arising from an employment relationship.
5. All labor appeals filed against judgments rendered at first instance, judgments and orders issued by enforcement judges, and interim and urgent rulings.
6. Enforcement of judicial judgments and orders issued by the Court."

This demonstrates that the Emirati legislator granted the Labor Court comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over all matters relating to labor claims raised by or against workers, ensuring that such matters are adjudicated exclusively by that court to standardize jurisprudence and prevent fragmentation of labor disputes among different courts based on jurisdictional technicalities, which would burden the worker and hinder prompt and effective recovery of rights.

Accordingly, as the Appellant had submitted documents to the court to substantiate the existence of an employment relationship between him and the Respondent—irrespective of the ultimate substantive assessment thereof—consisting of a copy of the termination email sent by the Respondent informing him of the termination of his services effective 8 January 2025 and requesting him to contact the company's financial manager to receive his financial dues and hand over custody of company devices and documents in his possession; a copy of the payroll sheet issued by the company and signed by its owner containing the Appellant's name, designation, commencement date, and allocated salary; a copy of voucher No. 003 dated 31/05/2025 for a bonus payment of AED 40,000 for his work in May 2024 signed by its General Manager [...]; and a copy of the list of company employees' names and emails listing his name and position as Sector Lead—and since these documents clearly indicate an existing employment relationship between him and the Respondent, which the latter did not deny or challenge for authenticity—the court nevertheless refrained from examining them and discerning the truth of the matter based on its conclusion that the Appellant lacked the status of an employee due to the absence of a prior work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, thereby concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Whereas Decision No. (18) of 2025 explicitly conferred comprehensive and absolute jurisdiction upon the Labor Court to adjudicate all claims filed by or against workers, rendering such claims—regardless of the legal opinion on the merits—under the jurisdiction of the Labor Court, the challenged judgment erred in applying the law when it held that the Labor Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim. However, in application of Article 6 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labor Relations, which mandates

that a worker must obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, prohibiting the practice of any work in the State prior to obtaining said license, and likewise prohibiting an employer from recruiting or employing any worker without obtaining a permit from the competent authority; and since the records establish the absence of such permit, which entails that the Appellant does not hold the statutory status of an employee and is consequently deprived of the protections and guarantees conferred by the Labor Law in favor of employees. Consequently, while the Labor Court retains jurisdiction to hear the claims presented by the Appellant—due to the establishment of an underlying work relationship between him and the Respondent—it does not apply the provisions of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 Regulating Labor Relations to such claims, but rather adjudicates them in accordance with the Civil Code, as the relationship between the parties falls outside the ambit of the Labor Law because the Appellant failed to secure a prior work permit from the Ministry so as to benefit from the statutory guarantees provided by the Labor Law to which he has no right due to non-compliance with statutory procedures, and he is likewise obliged to pay the civil court fees.

As the challenged judgment ruled that the Labor Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim—notwithstanding that it has jurisdiction—it erred in the application of the law, warranting cassation and a new ruling confirming its jurisdiction to determine the claim, on the basis that the applicable law is the Civil Code and not the Labor Law.

Whereas the subject matter of Appeal No. 137 of 2025 is ripe for adjudication, and this Court having concluded that the Labor Court has jurisdiction to determine the claims submitted in the lawsuit on the basis of the Civil Code rather than the Labor Law, it rules to reverse the appellate ruling and rule anew establishing jurisdiction to hear the case as detailed in the operative part.

For These Reasons

The Court has ruled:

To totally overturn the challenged judgment, to obligate the Respondent to pay the court fees and expenses, including one thousand Dirhams (AED 1,000) for the Appellant's attorney fees, and to order the refund of the cassation deposit to the Appellant; and ruling on the subject matter of Appeal No. 137 of 2025, to cancel the judgment holding that the Labor Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim, to rule anew establishing its jurisdiction, and to remit the appeal back to the court that rendered the appealed judgment to decide on its merits on the basis of the Civil Code after demanding payment of the requisite court fees, and obligating the Appellant-in-Appeal (Respondent herein) to pay the appeal expenses.

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation – Labor Court Division
Annex to Judgment No. 44-2025 Labor - MR - QA - Z Labor Main Headquarters
Date: 25/06/2025 CE