Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 172

Summary: - The settlement contract between the appellant and the respondent bank for which she works. Contingent upon the result it achieves and whether or not it affords her a greater benefit than the provisions of the Labour Law. Its diminution of those rights, including the prohibition on the employer charging interest on the loans it granted her. Its effect. Nullity of the contract. Inapplicability of the provision of Article 13 of Law 51/2010 establishing a fund to address the circumstances of citizens in default on loan repayments, which required the waiver of any mutual judicial actions concerning a worker's indebtedness under a loan obtained in that capacity from the employer. Rule: The provision in Article 115 of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning Labour in the Private Sector that "(1)..... (2) Every condition or agreement concluded before or after this Law comes into force whereby a worker waives any right granted by the Law shall be void. Every settlement or discharge involving a reduction of, or release from, the worker's rights arising under the employment contract during its term or within three months from the date of its termination shall likewise be void whenever it contravenes the provisions of this Law" clearly indicates that the legislature gave no effect to any agreement between an employer and a worker that deprives the latter of any of his rights prescribed by the provisions of the Labour Law, and removed its binding force between its parties because it contravenes these mandatory provisions relating to public policy, by which it intended to achieve a general economic and social interest. It prohibited the parties to an employment contract from opposing that interest through agreements between them, unless they afford the worker a greater benefit than that prescribed for him by those provisions, so as to achieve a fair balance between the interests of workers and their protection, on the one hand, and the interests of employers, on the other, because of the positive effects of that balance on national output generally. It extended the scope of application of this provision to agreements concluded before it came into force. Accordingly, the validity of the settlement contract concluded between the appellant and the first respondent bank on 19/1/2011 is contingent upon the result it achieves. If it yields a benefit for the worker, "the appellant", greater than that afforded to her by the aforementioned provisions of the Labour Law, it is valid and binding upon its parties. If it diminishes her rights prescribed therein, including the prohibition on the employer, "the first respondent", charging interest on the loans it granted her while she was working for it, that contract is void, has no binding force between its parties, and is not subject to the provision of Article 13 of the aforementioned Law No. 51 of 2010, which requires its parties to waive any mutual judicial actions between them concerning the worker's indebtedness under a loan obtained—in that capacity—from the employer.