The Abu Dhabi Labour Court has ordered a contracting company to pay Dh195,000 to a former site supervisor after finding no evidence that the worker’s end-of-service entitlements had been settled. In its ruling, the court said the case file contained no proof absolving the company of its financial obligations to the claimant, who had filed the lawsuit after resigning in April 2025. The claimant had been employed by the company since 1999 and told the court he did not receive his dues upon leaving his post. However, the court awarded Dh124,800, in line with the amount claimed. With regard to annual leave, the court held that compensation is calculated based on the basic salary. These included 10 months of unpaid salaries amounting to Dh65,000, an end-of-service gratuity of Dh124,800, and Dh5,200 in compensation for unused annual leave over the final two years of his employment. The defendant company did not appear during the proceedings. Court records showed that documents submitted through the case management system, including the employment contract and salary records, confirmed the claimant was employed under a fixed-term contract as a site supervisor, with a basic monthly salary of Dh5,200 and a total monthly pay of Dh6,500. The court applied the provisions of the UAE Labour Law under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021. The court ruled that the employee was entitled to his unpaid wages, noting that employers are required to pay salaries on time in accordance with Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation regulations. In the absence of proof of payment, the court found the claimant entitled to leave compensation for the final year and part of the preceding year. It determined that the claimant had served the company for 25 years, nine months, and 23 days, entitling him to a gratuity of Dh126,427 based on his basic salary. It added that an employer’s liability for wages can only be discharged through written proof, acknowledgment, or sworn oath, none of which were presented. On the issue of end-of-service benefits, the court found that the company failed to prove any break in the employee’s service or submit relevant accounting records.
