Tag: Case and Fatwa Summary

The Supreme Court held that the failure of the employer to terminate a definite period employment contract before its expiry transformed the contract into a new indefinite period contract.

An employee sued his employer for failing to pay him a cost-of-living allowance that his colleagues receive. The Supreme Court confirmed that it has the power to re-adjust the salary of an employee to match the salaries of other employees in the same organisation in accordance with article 11 of the Labour Law if the employees are working in the same circumstances, have the same qualifications, and agree to the same work conditions. However, the Supreme Court decided that the employee was unable to establish that the facts of his employment met the requirements of article 11 of the Labour Law, and therefore rejected his claims.

The Supreme Court refused to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds that it had defects outside the grounds identified by the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, even though these defects would have been grounds to set aside an ordinary court judgment.

An employee of German nationality sued his employer for unlawful dismissal and claimed compensation. The Primary Court in Muscat sided with the employee and ordered the employer to pay the employee compensation, but this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Muscat on the grounds that the Primary Court in Muscat had no jurisdiction to rule on this matter due to the existence of an arbitration clause between the employee and the employer. The Supreme Court ruled that the arbitration clause is invalid because it constituted a waiver of workers' rights that are guaranteed by the Labour Law and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal in Muscat to reconsider its merits.

An Omani employee was terminated from his job for insulting a manager in the presence of other employees. He sued his employer for unfair dismissal and demanded compensation. The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of employment was valid, emphasising that any form of assault affecting a person’s dignity is deemed grievous under article 40(8) of the Labour Law of 2003.

An Omani employee working on a 2-week on 2-week off rotational system sued his employer for refusing to compensate him for working during national holidays. The Supreme Court ruled that he was not entitled to compensation on the grounds that the working system of the employer, in terms of working hours and working days, was more favourable overall than the system prescribed by the Labour Law, and therefore, the failure to compensate the worker for the national day holidays is not deemed a valuation.

A debtor obtained a loan from a bank without disclosing that he was permanently totally disabled. The bank insured the loan after it was given. The court held that the insurer was not responsible for the repayment of the loan because the accident that caused the disability took place before the term of the policy, and the debtor was ordered to repay the loan in full with interest.

The Public Prosecution sued an employer as a criminal action for failing to compensate employees on a 2-week on 2-week off rotation work system for working on official holidays and rest days. The court held that criminal convictions require a high standard for establishing an offence, and depriving employees of national holidays and rest days can be justified in the overall package offered through the 2-week on 2-week off rotational system if it is more advantageous to employees.

A Twitter user was accused of violating the Cybercrime Law by insulting agents of a falaj for their role in depriving a public park of water, which led to the deterioration of the conditions of the park. The Supreme Court ruled that the competing intentions of the perpetrator (protecting public interest vs insulting certain individuals) must be weighed against each other when determining if a crime has taken place. In this case, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nizwa finding him not guilty on the basis that the public interest intention outweighed the insult intention.

The Supreme Court confirmed the invalidation of a new trade mark registration due to its similarity to an existing registration. In deciding if the trade marks are similar, the Supreme Court held that one must look at the collective elements of the mark and not individual elements.