In a legal battle unfolding before the Civil Court in Dubai, an employee has accused the management of his company of engaging in deceptive practices. Central to his claim are allegations of falsified work schedules and misrepresentation of vacation entitlements.
Allegations of falsification and manipulation
In a recent legal dispute brought before the Civil Court in Dubai, an employee leveled accusations against the management of his company, alleging manipulation of his work schedules and miscalculation of his vacation entitlements. The employee contended that these actions resulted in significant financial losses and emotional distress. Seeking redress, he demanded compensation totaling 90 thousand dirhams, citing damages to his physical, psychological, and moral well-being.
Demand for Compensation
The crux of the employee's claim revolved around the falsification of his work records, specifically pertaining to his monthly schedules and vacation allowances. He asserted that the management deliberately misrepresented his weekly leave entitlements, counting them as two days instead of the actual one day he was entitled to.
Consequently, this discrepancy led to a loss of income, with the employee alleging that he missed out on earnings for six months following the termination of his employment contract. Forced to deplete his savings and borrow funds amounting to 36 thousand dirhams, the employee highlighted the severe financial strain he endured as a result of these actions. Moreover, he emphasized the psychological toll, citing feelings of anguish and heartbreak stemming from the company's actions.
In support of his claims, the employee referenced a previous labor dispute where he successfully obtained compensation for wrongful dismissal and other entitlements. Despite previous legal recourse, he pursued civil action, seeking additional reparation for the harm suffered. However, the court's ruling hinged on the presence of error, damage, and causality, essential elements for establishing liability. While the employee argued for compensation, the court ultimately found that these criteria were not met, citing prior compensation received through labor court proceedings.
The defendant, in response, contested the employee's assertions, characterizing the discrepancies in his records as inadvertent errors promptly corrected. Additionally, they argued against the admissibility of the lawsuit, citing a lack of legal standing and the previous adjudication of similar claims by the labor court. Despite these objections, the civil court upheld the employee's right to pursue his case, rejecting the defendant's arguments regarding legal capacity and the preclusion of the lawsuit.
Ultimately, the court's decision underscored the importance of establishing legal grounds for liability and the principle of res judicata, wherein matters previously adjudicated cannot be re-litigated. While sympathetic to the employee's plight, the court found that the requisite elements for liability were not satisfied, given the previous compensation received. Thus, the employee's quest for additional restitution was denied, signaling the conclusion of this legal saga.