المملكة: “Health”… Compensation of 101 thousand riyals to a former employee after his unfair dismissal

A labor court in the city of Riyadh issued a ruling obligating the Ministry of Health to compensate a former employee with an amount of “101,682” Saudi riyals, after the Ministry terminated his employment contract without legitimate reasons.

Cause of judgment

The reasoning for the ruling stated: “Since the defendant argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to compensation because the termination of services was due to absence based on Article 80 of the Labor Law, she did not provide proof of her warning to the plaintiff 10 days after the date of his absence, and she only provided an undated text, and also included Her answer is that that period was a period of consideration of the sick leave provided by the plaintiff until the medical authority’s decision was issued not to accept the leave, and then the dismissal decision was issued due to absence from 6/8/1444 AH until Its date, and the attached decision was not mentioned without a number or date, and the plaintiff’s acknowledgment that the Ministry dismissed the plaintiff and excluded him from Social Insurance on the date of 9/18/1445 AH, and since the employment contract concluded between the two parties is an indefinite contract, the plaintiff is entitled to 15 days’ wages for each year of his work. With the Ministry, and because the plaintiff worked for it from the date of 6/1/1435 AH to the date of 9/18/1445 AH, for a period of 9 years, eleven months and eight Twenty days, and based on the first paragraph of the article of the Labor Law, which states: “Unless the contract includes specific compensation in exchange for its termination by one of the parties for an illegal reason, the party harmed by the termination of the contract is entitled to an indefinite period,” and because the claimed wage acknowledged in the defendant’s answer is the amount of 19,110 riyals and it was not The plaintiff shall provide evidence of the claimed wage, and as stated in the first paragraph of Article 15 of the Procedural Evidence of the Evidence System, there is a special provision that proof must be presented when filing the lawsuit or submitting the first defense memorandum, as the case may be. The court did not permit it to be submitted at another date.” He was satisfied with what was presented, which led the department to decide accordingly.

Plaintiff’s claim claims

Among the facts of the case is that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Ministry, requesting that it be obligated to pay “220” thousand riyals as compensation for his end of service, and to pay “110” thousand riyals as compensation for the termination of the labor relationship, in addition to paying litigation fees.
The employee appealed his request submitted to the judiciary, stating that he contracted a serious illness while he was on unpaid leave while outside the Kingdom, which led to his admission to hospital in the United Kingdom and his hospitalization for his critical condition. A medical report was issued to him approved by the Saudi Health Attaché, which included a leave of 6 months and 10 days before… The leave period ends with two days. A second medical report is submitted that includes a leave that begins on the day following the end of the first leave, for a period of one year, five months, and 16 days.
He pointed out that his leave request was neither accepted nor rejected, nor did he respond to his request to accompany his wife, who had previously been issued a scholarship decision to the United Kingdom, and that the university’s headquarters is in the same city where he resides.
The plaintiff added that after a year and a month, the Ministry issued a decision not to accept the second sick leave, indicating that only less than 4 months before the rejection decision was issued, he visited the Occupational Medicine Clinic in King Saud City at the request of the Ministry, where a decision was later issued guaranteeing his fitness to work, indicating He did not report that until the date of his dismissal, as his dismissal and exclusion from Social Insurance took place on 9/18/1445 AH, by a decision that does not have a number or date that includes his dismissal as of 8/6/1444 AH, and the Ministry did not notify him until 4/11/1445 AH.

Delaying the decision

The plaintiff believed that the Ministry’s silence for more than a full year regarding the leave request is evidence of its acceptance, and that the delay in deciding on the leave request, and this delay and failure to decide on the request to accompany his wife and leaving it pending, is evidence of the abuse of power. He added that his wages were suspended from the first leave and he was arbitrarily dismissed without being investigated and his defense recorded. He was also deprived of the end-of-service reward. In addition, he was not handed the dismissal decision at the time so that he could object to the judicial authorities.

Ministry of Health statement

For its part, the Ministry said that the plaintiff submitted a sick leave and it was accepted, but after it ended he did not begin his work. After that, he submitted another sick leave and also submitted a scholarship companion’s leave, where his leave was presented to the General Medical Authority for review and consideration of his fitness to work based on Article “108” of Work organization regulations for self-employment programs, which stipulate “If the sick leave exceeds 120 days, the employee shall be referred to the General Medical Authority to determine the extent of his suitability for work, and then determine his continuation.” “Whether or not,” noting that the Authority reported on 5/7/1444 AH that his last sick leave would not be approved because there was no medical justification for that, and thus his absence from work is considered without any excuse.
Regarding the delay in responding regarding the scholarship leave, the Ministry, represented by the department in which the plaintiff works, decided to wait until the General Medical Authority responded to the inquiries sent to it, stressing that this is not an excuse for the plaintiff not to resume his work and stop working after his leave expired, as he had to resume work until he took it. Official approval from his administration.

Notice of cancellation

The Ministry indicated that the plaintiff was notified to terminate the contract via the official e-mail sent to him, as the plaintiff’s contract was terminated due to his absence from work to date and that it was based on Paragraph 7 of Article 150 of the Work Organization Regulations for Self-Employment Programs and what was stated in Paragraph “10/1.” » From Article 187 of the same regulations in the schedule of violations and penalties: Absence from work without a legitimate reason for a period exceeding 15 consecutive days in one contractual year. Termination of the contract without reward or compensation, provided that A written warning shall be given after a 10-day absence in accordance with the provisions of Article 80 of the Labor Law.
The Ministry demanded that the case be rejected because it was not based on valid evidence, and that the date of the last working day was 6/8/1444 AH and the date of appointment was 6/1/1435 AH.