KCC 88/2010

This case involved a claim by the heirs of an employee for unpaid severance pay. The case was originally rejected due to the statute of limitations. However, no evidence was provided to show the father had stopped working when the company had dissolved. So his service period should have been considered as being connected.

Background

The heirs of an employee made a complaint against a company before the Labour Department and requested the department to pay their father's salary. The department referred the case to the court.

The court refused to consider the case due to the statute of limitations.

The heirs appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court abandoned the appealed ruling and ruled the company should pay the heirs 1627 Dinars.

Decision

The heirs appealed the ruling before the court of cassation and stated in their grounds of appeal that the ruling had erred in the application of law and had insufficient evidence of causation because the court had ruled that their father did not deserve severance pay as the company had dissolved although their father had continued working after the dissolution of the company.