Privacy Settings

Claim No. SCT 311/2021

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS

BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

BETWEEN

LAXMAN

Claimant

and

LAJITTI

Defendant

JUDGMENT OF H.E JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER

UPON this Claim being filed on 24 October 2021

AND UPON a Hearing having been held before H.E Justice Nassir Al Nassir on 21 December 2021, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 51,650.

2. The Defendant shall settle the overstay imposed on the Claimant directly to the Government sector responsible.

3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 1,893.

Issued by:
Nassir Al Nasser
SCT Registrar
Date of issue: 29 December 2021
At: 10am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Laxman (the “Claimant”), an individual filing a claim against the Defendant regarding her employment at the Defendant company.

2. The Defendant is Lajitti (the Defendant), a company registered in the DIFC.

Background and the Preceding History

3. The underlying dispute arises over the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to an Employment Contract dated 5 August 2019 (“the Employment Contract”).

4. The Claimant commenced work with the Defendant on 7 August 2019.

5. On 24 October 2021, the Claimant filed a claim in the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking various employment claims in the sum of AED 100,000.

6. On 16, 18 and 22 November 2021, a consultation was held before SCT Judge Hayley Norton, however the parties were unable to reach a settlement.

7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 21 December 2021.

The Claim

8. The Claimant’s monthly salary as per the Employment Contract was AED 3,000 per month.

9. The Claimant filed a Claim for AED 100,000 which consists of the following breakdown:

The Defence

10. During the course of the hearing, the Defendant confirmed its agreement to pay the overstay directly to the Government Sector responsible.

11. However, the Defendant alleges that the Claimant is only entitled to AED 26,278 which consists of salaries.

Discussion

12. This dispute is governed by DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended by DIFC Law No. 4 of 2020 (the “DIFC Employment Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract.

13. I shall set out each of the Claimant’s claims below and provide my determination as to whether the Claimant is entitled to these claims.

Salaries

14. The Claimant claims that she is entitled to salaries from January 2020 to October 2021 in the sum of AED 43,650.

15. The Defendant in response argues that the Claimant is only entitled to the sum of AED 26,278 as a final settlement of her employment.

16. The Defendant has provided salary slips from 2019, 2020 and 2021. The salary slips were not consistent, some were unsigned, and some were dated without the year. I have reviewed the slips and calculated the payments made only in 2020 and 2021 which the Claimant has claimed.

17. The calculations I made confirm that the Defendant only paid the Claimant the sum of AED 19,200 throughout the past one year and 10 months from January 2020 to October 2021. My calculations made pursuant to the salary slips provided indicate that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of AED 46,800.

18. Article 16(c) of the DIFC Employment Law states the following:

19. I find that the Defendant failed to keep a consistent record of the salary payments made to the Claimant. Therefore, I find that the Claimant is entitled to her unpaid salaries in the sum of AED 43,650 as claimed.

Annual Leave and Public Holidays

20. In relation to payment in lieu of accrued but untaken annual leave of two months, the Claimant claims the sum of AED 6,000.

21. Article 16(g) of the DIFC Employment Law states the following:

22. The Defendant failed to provide a record of the Claimant’s leave and the remaining balance. Therefore, I find that the Claimant is entitled to her claim of AED 6,000 in relation to annual leave of two months.

23. The Claimant also argues that she has worked on all the public holidays and is therefore entitled to the sum of AED 2,000.

24. Article 16(g) of the DIFC Employment Law states the following:

25. Once again, the Defendant failed to provide the records of the public holidays taken by Claimant. Therefore, I find that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of AED 2,000 in relation to public holiday.

Flight Ticket

26. The Claimant claims the sum of AED 3,000 as payment in lieu of a flight ticket. However, the Claimant failed to provide any reference as per the Employment Contract that she is in fact entitled to a flight ticket.

27. Therefore, I shall dismiss the Claimant’s claim for flight tickets.

Money Claim

28. The Claimant further claims the sum of AED 2,000 in argument that she has borrowed money to pay her rent. However, she has failed to provide an agreement setting out the Defendant’s willingness to pay her such amount, and I find the that the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Claimant for money which she has borrowed on her own will.

29. Therefore, I dismiss the Claimant’s claim for the sum of AED 2,000 pertaining to money borrowed to pay rent.

Conclusion

30. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the total sum of AED 51,650.

31. The Defendant shall settle the overstay imposed on the Claimant directly to the Government sector responsible.

32. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court fee in the sum of AED 1,893.