The UAE Labour Law Court Cases - Assignment Example

 Law Assignment Abstract The assignment aims to study three cases from the UAE Penal Code in accordance with the national civil law, criminal law and the Shariah law, which constitutes the section 1 of this assignment. In the other section of the assignment, the UAE Labour Law has been described along with the similar cases in accordance with the Article 37 and 120. Section 1 Case 1 - Civil Law Legal position of the case The article titled “Credit check: Debt sentence” reported by Jay B. Hilotin illustrates a real life case example under to the civil law provisions enacted in Dubai. The people of the UAE are sentenced to imprisonment of one month to three years if an individual is convicted for issuing cheques that he/she fails to honour. The article reports various instances of individuals being convicted for issuing dishonoured cheques such as Ahmad Abdullah (48 years old, an Emirati currently serving undefined period of imprisonment), Rushdie (a Filipino, also serving an undefined period of imprisonment), Yousuf (28 years old European serving 9 years of jail), Angelito (a Filipino of 48 years old who served only 2 years of imprisonment) and others. As per the amended provisions under Article 401 of the UAE Penal Code, individuals convicted to commit the crime of issuing a dishonoured cheque may continue to serve imprisonment even after the completion of their prison tenure until their debt is completely repaid. Nevertheless, a margin is levied on the provision, which considers only cheques amounting to Dh1000 or more as liable for imprisonment (Hilotin, 2012). A summary of the case and the judgment given by the court Various cases have been registered and are being registered against people signing dishonoured cheques. Manu have been imprisoned in the jail of Dubai due to the offense of issuing cheques more than their held funds that was later identified to be bounced, with little significance to the underlying causes of such actions, which further makes the law quite stringent and proves to be much effective in restricting any intended or unintended forgery to repaying debts. There are few landmark cases identified in the article, where 48 years old Emirati, named Ahmad Abdullah, was imprisoned as he failed to hold sufficient balance to clear the cheques owing to the failure of his business. As the chain of cheques being dishonoured continued, Mr. Abdullah’s imprisonment also extended in terms of duration, to an indefinite period until his debts are repaid completely. Another case of a 28 year old European named Yousuf was imprisoned for nine years of signing dishonoured cheques in favour of his employer organisation that was later categorised as a typical example in Dubai. He was a simple accountant of a real estate firm in Dubai and signed several cheques as a part of his daily duty. But with the collapse of the firm, many of the company lenders filed a case against him as he had issued those cheques. As a consequence, he had to serve imprisonment for nine years as he had signed the bounced cheques, but he was not entitled to repay the loaned amount (Hilotin, 2012). My personal opinion about the case As affirmed in the article, the motive behind enacting the law under Article 401 of the UAE Penal Code has been to restrict individuals from committing forgery in the form of borrowing. This makes it justified as to why the sentences given for imprisonment are strict and prolonged. As affirmed by Jafar Al Touq, a professional lawyer in the UAE, “Those who think that sitting in jail without paying a loan is a temporary, short-term way out of debt are absolutely wrong. Otherwise, I will also do the same thing - borrow, then stay in jail for a while and keep the money” (Hilotin, 2012). I agree to this term but would also like to suggest certain degree of remittance for the accused, as in often cases, taking the example of Yousuf, who was an accountant in a firm and had to serve the punishment sentence for singing dishonoured cheques as a part of his job, the debtors fall under a false impression owing to the misdeed of a different entity. The debtors must be given a grace period of at least a month so that they can pay-off the money of the lenders. Case 2 - Criminal Law Legal position of the case The article titled “Wanted Emirati drug dealer arrested in Dubai” gives information on the major success of Dubai police in arresting one of the most dangerous and long wanted drug dealers of the country, M.S.A.B. The police was in search of the suspect for a long period of time as revealed in the case. There have been 13 cases launched against M.S.A.B. by the plaintiff, i.e. the Anti Narcotics Department and the Dubai police, where only 3 cases have been resolved under the various relevant provisions of the UAE Penal Code, while 10 cases remain unsolved till date. The defendant has been accused majorly for trading of illegal drugs and also for murder charges along with other offences. To be noted, the defendant’s siblings were also convicted for criminal offences and are presently jailed in the UAE (Nazzal, 2013). A summary of the case and the judgment given by the court According to the article, the drug dealer is a 26 year old Emirati with a long history of promoting and selling drugs in the residential and school areas. The dealer was caught during a police raid at his home. He was found burying a rectangular object containing huge amounts of illegal narcotic drugs in the wall of his neighbourhood. The Director of the Anti Narcotics Department in UAE, Maj Gen Abdul Jalil Mahdi Al Asmawi stated that they were chasing him since a long time but were unable to trace and jail him. After the investigation of the case it was observed that the defendant usually targeted school children and adults for promoting drugs. At present the defendant is in the prison of Dubai along with his other brothers who were also involved in similar crimes and have been spending their days in jail (Nazzal, 2013). My personal opinion about the case The defendant in this case is indeed a dangerous convict involved in felony crimes. He was not only involved in the selling of illegal drugs but also imposed a severe threat to the society in Dubai by involving teenagers and young adults in his crime. He was running a large network of drug trafficking all over the country. His offense was not a simple one and thus, he must be charged with all the acts relating to the crime of drugs dealing. The legislation of the year 1996 states that the person involved on drug trafficking must be sentenced to death or a long term imprisonment (U.S. Department of State, n.d). As per my personal opinion, the defendant of this case must be entitled with the same legislation rule and punished accordingly. Case 3 - Shariah Law Legal position of the case The article titled “What is it with expats and sex offences?” highlights the case of a Norwegian expatriate, named Marte Deborah Dalelv, who has been convicted for being involved with the crimes of adultery, false reporting of the case and consumption of alcohol, which is illegal in UAE. The adultery cases are recognised as a severe crime according to the Shariah law of UAE, where the convict was accused for making false allegation of being raped. The Norwegian lady, the defendant in this case, was punished with the imprisonment duration of 16 months on the grounds of committing an illegal offence by having ‘sex-outside-marriage’. As the legal provisions deem similar offences caused by expatriates severely punishable, the case certainly created a clash between the image of the western culture in Dubai and the Shariah law prevalent in the country (Hilotin, 2013). A summary of the case and the judgment given by the court The case presented a Norwegian lady expatriate as the convict, named Marte Deborah Dalelv in Dubai who was accused of adultery crime, false reporting of rape and consumption of alcohol. All of these crimes are accounted to be against the Shariah law of UAE Penal Code. Two similar cases were also reported in 2008 and in 2012where two Briton expatriates were convicted for having ‘sex-outside-marriage’. These types of cases have been continuously reported since last few years. The authorities of Dubai reported to have already warned the British Embassy to list out the basic rules to be followed by the British tourists as well as expatriates during their visit in Dubai, whereby the case of Marte gave rise to many questions regarding the cultural divergences of Dubai from the European societies. Her case had created a conflict between the two cultures on the grounds of the Western image portrayed by the people of Dubai in correspondence to the Shariah law. To be noted, the Shariah law considers ‘sex-outside-marriage’ as a punishable offence. According to the Shariah law, the guilty would be given 100 lashes or death penalty in case of such crime. The Article 357 of the UAE Penal Code further states that the guilty must be imprisoned for at least one year being convicted of such crime. The defendant involved in the crime of rape is to be given death penalty if the casualty is under the age of 14 years (Hilotin, 2013). My personal opinion about the case Based on humanitarian and social grounds, I agree that the Shariah law is justifiably strict regarding the issues involving adultery and rape. The death penalty of the rapists is very much justified as it will create a fear among the people and prevent them from performing such crimes. Causing such a fear can also be deemed as necessary based on the fact that an increase of 29% in the sex related crimes was reported by the Dubai police in 2010 from 2009, which awaits the recent survey results but apparently signifies a polarisation between European societies and societies in the UAE (Hilotin, 2013). However, when considering the case of Marte Deborah Dalelv, I would also like to suggest that stricter investigation must be deemed mandatory before convicting any individual for adultery crime, categorising it as ‘sex-outside-marriage’ and nullifying the same as a rape. Section 2: The UAE Labour Law Probation Period Article no. and definition. The Article 37 of the UAE Labour Law states that an employee can be selected for a probationary period of not more than six months and the employer will have the full authority to cease the employee without any prior notice during the maximum of six months of probation period (Smart Government of Dubai, 2001). Summary of the related case of UAE Labour Law. In the year 2004, the Supreme Court of Dubai had passed a resolution where it was strictly mentioned that the probation period of the employees must not be extended from six months, both the case of expatriates and nationals. This resolution was passed on the basis of a case filed by a project manager against his prior company. He was hired by the company on a three months probation period but later it was extended to six months. He was dismissed from the company due to some unjustified reasons according to the accusation. Against these activities, he had claimed Dh33, 700 with 9% interest and Dh2, 500 as monthly housing allowance from the termination period till the time he receives all his money back from the company. The plaintiff had also claimed for all the other benefits such as return ticket cost, due salaries and the benefits, which are liable to be delivered by the company at the end of the service. Lastly, the Civil Court of Dubai had ordered the company to pay back the amount along with the interests and the housing allowance as per the provisions of Article 37. But the court did not order the company to pay back the other benefits as the UAE Court of Cassation quoted that he was not entitled to receive the benefits as he was terminated from his job. Nevertheless, the court also quoted that the extension of the probation period from three months to six months was completely illegal and ordered for a retrial of the case in the court (Za'za, 2004). Personal opinion of the case. In my opinion, the plaintiff’s claim was justifiable as his company had violated the conditions of Article 37 of UAE Labour Law. This article strictly states that the probation period of the employee must not be more than six months or more than the stipulated time promised by the company during the recruitment. But, in this case, the company had employed the plaintiff on a probation period of three months, but later was extended to six months. The Court of Cassation had given a justified decision, which ordered the company to pay back the basic salary along with interest and housing allowance, but not the other benefits as he was terminated from the company. Termination Article no. and definition. The Article 120 of UAE Labour Law states that an employer can terminate the employee without notice, if he/she is found forging the original nationality and presenting false documents in the company; if the employee makes any serious mistakes and causes harm to the company; and if the employee is found to be involved in any kind of wrong activity or not following the preliminary rules of the company. An employee having a habit of taking drugs or alcoholic beverages is also liable for termination. The other circumstance specifies that if the employee is absent for more than seven days without informing the company, he/she will be terminated by the responsible authority. Apart from these reasons, if the employee is being terminated with any justified reason, the employer must give notice 30 days prior (Smart Government of Dubai, 2001). Summary of the related case of UAE Labour Law. In the year 2009, few Emiratis had filed case to the Ministry of Labour against their employer stating the case of illegal termination. The case was filed against Al Futtaim Group, claiming for monetary compensation on the basis of the legal norms of labour law of UAE. The company had terminated altogether 40 employees without any lawful reason. On the other side, the employer was constantly stating that they had to do so due to the ongoing financial crisis in the world. One of the employees, Ahmad Al Naqbi, said that the company was giving false reasons of the financial crisis, but the actual reason for the termination was racial discrimination. But the particular statement of the employee was refused by the employer as they said that among 700 employees, only 30 have been terminated, which does not have grounds to claim that it was a racial discrimination. The employees also had filed complaint in the Dubai’s Ruler courts. They also made a request to the government to make such rules, which will help them to retain their jobs (Issa, 2009). Personal opinion of the case. As per my opinion, after the study of the case, the reason seemed to be quite confusing. It was true that the financial crisis led many of the companies to dismiss their employees, but in this case the norm might not be the sole reason. Among the total employees of 700, only the 30 Emiratis were terminated that does not make any sense of the effects of the crisis. The employees filing the case in the Ministry of Labour were a good step as the termination was not the solution to the problem. Therefore, I would like to argue that the employees must be at least granted with the monetary compensation by the company. References Hilotin, J. B. (2012). Credit check: Debt sentence. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/credit-check-debt-sentence-1.971420 Hilotin, J. B. (2013). What is it with expats and sex offences? Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news/al-nisr-portfolio/xpress/news/what-is-it-with-expats-and-sex-offences-1.1215403 Issa, w. (2009). Emiratis allege arbitrary termination of services. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/employment/emiratis-allege-arbitrary-termination-of-services-1.51140 Nazzal, N. (2013). Wanted Emirati drug dealer arrested in Dubai. Retrieved from http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/crime/wanted-emirati-drug-dealer-arrested-in-dubai-1.1222084 Smart Government of Dubai. (2001). Labour law and its amendments. Retrieved from http://www.deg.gov.ae/SiteCollectionImages/Content/pubdocs/UAE_Labour_Law_eng.pdf U.S. Department of State. (N.d). United Arab Emirates country specific information. Retrieved from http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1050.html Za'za, B. (2004). No extension of probation period of workers - Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://m.gulfnews.com/no-extension-of-probation-period-of-workers-supreme-court-1.312624 Read More