Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 383

Summary: - A resignation request. It does not, of itself, produce its legal effect of terminating the employment relationship. The occurrence of this occupational effect upon service depends on the decision issued by the employer expressly accepting it or the expiry of the period after which it is deemed accepted by operation of law. - The appellant's submission of a request expressing his desire to resign without specifying a date for the end of his work. The respondent company's issuance of a decision approving acceptance of his resignation and specifying his last working day. Its implication: the concurrence of the intentions of the parties to the contract regarding the appellant's desire to resign and its acceptance by the said company. Its effect: achievement of the purpose sought by the legislature in prescribing a notice period. Neither may claim payment in lieu of notice from the other, because the rationale for prescribing it is absent, namely, preventing either party from surprising the other by terminating the contract. The challenged judgment's departure from this and its ordering the appellant to pay the company payment in lieu of notice. An error in the application of the law. Rule: It is established in the jurisprudence of this Court that a resignation request—to ensure the proper, regular and continuous conduct of work—does not, of itself, produce its legal effect of terminating the employment relationship. Rather, the occurrence of this service-terminating effect depends on the decision issued by the employer expressly accepting it or the expiry of the period after which it is deemed accepted by operation of law. Accordingly, and since it is established from the papers that the appellant submitted a request to the respondent company dated 6/1/2011 expressing his desire to resign, without specifying therein a date for the end of his work, and that on 27/1/2011 it issued a decision approving acceptance of his resignation, with his last working day to be 31/1/2011, the intentions of the parties to the contract thus concurred regarding the appellant's desire to resign and its acceptance by the respondent company. Consequently, the legislature's purpose in prescribing the notice period in Article 44 of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning Work in the Private Sector, namely, preventing either party from surprising the other by unilaterally terminating the contract, was achieved through the concurrence of the intentions of the worker and the employer (the appellant and the respondent) to terminate the employment relationship between them. Accordingly, neither is entitled to claim payment in lieu of notice from the other, because the rationale for prescribing it is absent, namely, surprise in terminating the employment relationship. Since the challenged judgment departed from this view and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent an amount of 667 and 1066 dinars as payment in lieu of notice, it erred in applying the law, which renders it defective and necessitates its partial cassation in this respect.