Labor Cassation Judgment on Court Jurisdiction for Workers Without Permits

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

At the session held at the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation on 29 Dhul-Hijjah 1446 AH, corresponding to 25/06/2025 AD.

Presided over by Judge: Zouheir bin Ahmed
With the membership of Judge: Othman Makram
With the membership of Judge: Tarek Fathy

The case No.: 44-2025-Labor-M-R-Q-A-Z Labor Main Seat was heard.
Filed on: 25/05/2025

Subject: ...

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

Reasons

Whereas the appeal has met the formal requirements.

Whereas the facts, as they appear from the challenged judgment and other case documents, are that the plaintiff (the appellant) filed case No. 181/2025 Labor (Summary) Abu Dhabi against the defendant (the respondent), requesting in his final claims an order for her to pay him his labor dues, consisting of his late wages totaling AED 400,000, notice pay of AED 40,000, and compensation for arbitrary dismissal of AED 120,000, and to provide him with an experience certificate, with the judgment to be provisionally enforced without bond. In his statement, he said he joined the respondent's employment on 31/05/2024 in the position of .... with a basic and gross salary of AED 40,000 and remained in his job until 08/01/2025, when the respondent notified him of the termination of his service for no legitimate reason and did not pay his dues, leading to the lawsuit. The case was deliberated as established in the session minutes, during which the parties exchanged their defenses and arguments. On 15/04/2025, the court ordered the respondent to pay the appellant AED 292,000 for his late wages and AED 40,000 for notice pay, making the total awarded amount AED 332,000, which the respondent was ordered to pay him. It also ordered her to provide him with an experience certificate and rejected the remaining claims. The company against which the judgment was issued appealed this judgment under Appeal No. 137 of 2025 Labor Appeal Abu Dhabi. On 14/05/2025, the court ruled to set aside the appealed judgment and decreed anew the non-jurisdiction of the labor court to hear the case due to the appellant's failure to obtain a work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, which deprives him of the status of a worker as stipulated in the Labor Law and renders 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 for it.

Whereas the essence of the appellant's sole ground of appeal against the challenged judgment is the error in applying the law, flawed reasoning, and deficient causation when it concluded that the labor court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case due to the absence of a special work permit for him or a work contract authenticated by the competent administrative authority – the Ministry.

---

Judgment Annex No. 2025-44-Labor-M-R-Q-A-Z

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

Human Resources and Emiratisation – in violation of what is stated in the documents proving the existence of an employment relationship between the two parties according to the provisions of the law that granted the worker the right to prove the employment relationship between him and the employer by all means of proof, according to the text of Article (8/2) of the Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021 concerning the regulation of labor relations. Since it is clear from the conclusive evidence presented in the lawsuit, which the appellant relies on for its indication of the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent that lasted for 7 months and 9 days, and that the wage set for him was a total of AED 40,000 per month according to the admission issued by the respondent and signed by its owner, in addition to the salary statement signed by the latter, which shows the appellant's name as number (6) under the job title .... and indicates his start date of employment with the company on 01/06/2024. It is also proven through the email regarding the termination of his service sent to him by the respondent on 08/01/2025, confirming the existence of a work relationship that brought the two parties together and that the latter took its decision to terminate that relationship and notified him of that decision. It is also proven through the payment voucher issued by the respondent to the appellant for a financial reward of AED 40,000 for the month of May 2024, in addition to the WhatsApp conversations exchanged between the appellant and the respondent's employees regarding work, of which the appellant submitted samples. These confirm the dealings and communication between him and the administration of the respondent. All this evidence proves the existence of a fully-fledged employment relationship between him and the respondent. Therefore, the challenged judgment, in contradicting all these documents and concluding the absence of an employment relationship between the parties on the grounds of the appellant's failure to obtain a work license from the official authorities, and thus the non-jurisdiction of the labor court to hear the case, has violated what is established in the documents and is tainted with flawed reasoning, which led it to err in applying the law, making it defective and requiring its cassation.

Whereas this plea is sound, as the text of the third article of the Decision of the Chairman of the Judicial Department No. (18) of 2025 regarding 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 registered with the Ministry. 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 concerning 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 dues arising from the employment relationship. 5/ All labor appeals filed against judgments issued by the 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 subject-matter jurisdiction in all matters related to labor lawsuits filed by or against workers, so that the decision in them shall only be made by that court to ensure uniformity of opinion and to avoid the scattering 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 time and with the most guarantees and fastest means. Since that was the case, and the appellant had submitted documents to the court to prove the existence of an employment relationship between him and the respondent - whatever the opinion on them - and those documents consisted of the email sent to him by the respondent informing him of the termination of his service as of January 8, 2025, requesting him to contact the person in charge of financial affairs at the company to receive his financial dues and hand over the assets, devices, and papers belonging to it that were in his possession. He also submitted a copy of the payroll issued by the company, signed by its owner, containing the appellant's name, his position, the date he started work at the company, and the salary allocated to him. He also submitted a copy of a document dated 31/5/2025 No. 003 for the payment of a financial reward of AED 40,000 for his work with them during May/2024, signed by 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 and his capacity as a sector leader. These documents submitted by the appellant, on which he relied for their indication of an employment relationship between him and the respondent - which the latter did not deny or claim to be incorrect - yet the court disregarded their examination and statement of the truth therein, based on its conclusion of the lack of the worker's capacity in the appellant 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 that was the case, and 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, making such lawsuits - whatever the opinion on them - within the jurisdiction of the labor court. Therefore, the challenged judgment, in considering that the labor court is not competent to hear the lawsuit - while it is within its jurisdiction according to the aforementioned law - has erred in applying the law. However, in application of the provisions of Article 6 of the Federal Decree-Law No. 33/2021 concerning the regulation of labor relations, which required...

---

Judgment Annex No. 2025-44-Labor-M-R-Q-A-Z

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

the worker to obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation and prohibited him from practicing any work in the country before obtaining the said permit, just as it prohibited the employer from recruiting or employing any worker unless they have obtained a permit for that from the concerned authority. Since it is established in the documents that the said permit was not obtained, which results in the lack of the worker's status for the appellant and consequently his inability to benefit from the guarantees provided by the Labor Law for the benefit of the worker. Consequently, the Labor Court, although competent to hear the claims submitted 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 concerning the regulation of labor relations, but rather decides according to the Civil Law, as the relationship between the parties has become outside the scope of the Labor Law - due to the appellant's failure to obtain a prior work permit from the Ministry - so that he can benefit from the guarantees provided by the Labor Law, which he is not entitled to for not adhering to the legal procedures required therein, and he must be required to pay the civil court fee. Since the challenged judgment ruled that the Labor Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case - despite its jurisdiction to hear it - it has erred in applying the law, which requires 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, it therefore rules to set aside its ruling and to rule anew on the jurisdiction to hear the case as will be stated in the operative part.

For these reasons

The Court has ruled:

To overturn the challenged judgment in its entirety and has ordered the respondent to pay the fees and expenses, including one thousand dirhams for the appellant's attorney's fees, and has ordered the return of the security deposit to him. It has ruled in the matter of Appeal No. 137 of 2025 to set aside its ruling on the non-jurisdiction of the Labor Court to hear the case and to rule anew on its jurisdiction and to return the appeal to the court that issued the challenged judgment to decide on its merits based on the Civil Law after being tasked with paying the fee, and has ordered the appellant to bear the costs.

---

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation - Labor Chamber

Judgment Annex No. 2025-44-Labor-M-R-Q-A-Z

Date: 25/06/2025 AD

Unofficial digital copy