An employee sues his former company for “missing a job opportunity.”

A Gulf employee filed a lawsuit against his former company, demanding compensation worth 100,000 dirhams for damage he suffered due to procrastination in a procedure terminating his association with it, which led to him losing a new job opportunity.

He said in his statement of claim that he was working for the defendant company and submitted his resignation, but it was late in the procedures for canceling his account with the Pensions Authority, pointing out that he addressed it to end the procedure, but it breached its contractual obligations with him and delayed for more than five months.

He added that he addressed the Authority and obtained a certificate stating that he had been insured for months after his resignation, and no request was submitted to cancel the account, which caused him harm in losing a job opportunity that was offered to him by a bank, even though he signed the job offer and finalized the agreement with the new entity. However, it stipulated that the worker not join before canceling his permit and ending the procedures of the Pensions Authority.

He pointed out that when he addressed his previous employer regarding the end of his pension service, it informed him that he was suspended by the retirement authority, because he was paying in another emirate, pointing out that this error cost him damages amounting to 100 thousand dirhams, and he provided support for his claim with copies of the employment contract and a certificate. Issued by the General Authority for Pensions and Social Security, a copy of the job offer submitted to him by the new entity, and the correspondence that took place between him and his previous company.

After examining the case and the papers submitted by both parties, the Dubai Civil Court stated in the merits of its ruling that the plaintiff is legally responsible for proving his claim and presenting evidence that supports what he claims, and that it is not obligated to direct the opponents to the requirements of their defense. It is sufficient for it to evaluate its ruling according to the evidence and documents presented to it. It also Inexpensive to prove the opponent’s defense.

She indicated that what is established in her opinion is that the plaintiff filed his lawsuit on the basis of the defendant’s attribution of fault, regarding her delay in the procedures for canceling his account with the Pensions Authority, which resulted in damage to him, but the lawsuit was devoid of any evidence that the element of fault was established against her.

It stated that the defendant company submitted a portfolio of documents showing that it had notified the Authority to cancel the employee (plaintiff) only 11 days after his last day of work, and had received a mail from the Authority stating that the transaction had been successfully registered. It had also contacted it again to follow up on the request, and requested an end to the order to cancel his account in As soon as possible, then it becomes clear to the court that the employer is committed to what the laws impose on it in terms of notifying the authority within the specified period, and that the delay that occurred had nothing to do with it, and then the element of error on its part is eliminated, and the court rules By rejecting the case.

. The lawsuit lacks any evidence that the element of fault exists against the company, and it has nothing to do with the delay in terminating the employee’s association with it.