A final judgment of dismissal and compensation for arbitrary dismissal for not informing the worker of the termination of his contract

Breaking news

The rights of workers are varied and varied within the Egyptian labor law, since the provisions of the law are peremptory norms, in a more precise sense, it is not permissible to agree on violating or derogating from them. The labor law represents the minimum of the worker's rights, and the only case in which the rules may be violated. More or more benefit to the worker such as reducing the number of working hours or increase the number of days of the week.

In this regard, the Chamber of Labor issued 44 final judgments on the termination of the labor contract, which established and maintained the rights of the Egyptian worker, stating that the worker is not notified of the termination of employment contract in accordance with article 111 of the Labor Law, His entitlements determine that: "Any condition or agreement that contravenes the provisions of this law, even if it is previously in force, shall be null and void if it contains a derogation from the rights of the worker prescribed therein."

Judgment in the case of No. 2599 for the year 73 BC, issued under the chairmanship of Advisor Ashraf Baroudi, and the membership of advisers Tariq Tawil, Khairi Hassan and the secret secretariat of Imad Mounir.

The facts of the lawsuit were that the appellant filed suit No. 2689 for the year 2013 workers, according to a newspaper filed the register of the book and declared a law to the defendants as they requested at the end of the ruling to oblige the defendant as they lead to the amount of 500 thousand pounds compensation materially and morally as a result of the damage suffered by On the basis of the claim that it has been working with the first defendant company since May 1, 2009 and as of May 2013 the second defendant company purchased the first respondent company, was surprised on 30 June 2013 by the tide Z's decision to issue them by separating them, prompting them to set up its case in order to eliminate them above his demands.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against her in the form of a memo in her defense that led to the nullity of her embezzlement resulting in duress of coercion and fraud to force her to sign on the distribution of profits. She also submitted five files of documents that were folded on the original certificate of experience and the discharge of a party stating the termination of her service and salary items for May 2013, 2658 pounds and the origin of a certificate stating that the plaintiff was working in the company and a photocopy of the work agreement and its parties the first defendant and the second – the General Union of Food Industry Workers and the administrative committee of the company's first respondent – a second party – and The second defendant company purchased all the assets of the defendant company first and agreed to limit the application of the agreement to workers under the age of 60 and the retention of the workers in the work of their rights and their material and in kind and the balance of their vacations, In accordance with the Collective Labor Convention and that it is not entitled to claim any other dues or compensation other than the waiver thereof.

The court said in the judgment: "On the subject of appeal, the appeals were the compensation for the arbitrary dismissal and the notice period, when the court referred the case to the investigation to prove that the signed statement of the appellant had been subjected to moral coercion. In doing so I listened to the confirmed witnesses and the court reassured them. Testified that the appellant was forced to sign the declaration in order to be able to receive her dues in the amounts owed to her according to the terms of the collective labor agreement concluded between the appellant, which she considers a coercion invalidates the declaration and has no productive effect on the appeal and And then the court heard it. "

According to the «court» – as it was – and the papers are free of notice to the appellant to terminate the contract of work pursuant to the text of Article 111 of the Labor Code and then the court considers the termination of the contract as previously declared illegal termination of compensation under the provisions of article 122 of the Labor Code The judge shall determine the amount of compensation for the arbitrary dismissal of 24000.

61405191_456639618481260_6391223971412443136_n

.