Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 399

Summary: - Enactment of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning Labour in the Private Sector. Its effect: every settlement or release involving a reduction or discharge of the worker's rights arising under the employment contract during its term or within 3 months of its termination is void. The condition for this: that it contravene Article 115 of Law 6 of 2010, which relates to public order. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that Article 115 of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning Labour in the Private Sector—which applies to the facts of the dispute and relates to public order—provides: “1-........ 2- Likewise, every settlement or release involving a reduction or discharge of the worker's rights arising under the employment contract during its term or within 3 months of its termination shall be void whenever it contravenes the provisions of this Law.” This means that, upon enactment of the aforementioned Labour Law, effective from 21/2/2010, every settlement or release involving a reduction or discharge of the worker's rights arising under the employment contract during its term or within 3 months of its termination is void whenever it contravenes the provisions of this Law. That being so, it is established from the papers that the employment relationship between the appellant company and the respondent began on 6/12/2006 and ended on 31/2/2010, and thus this relationship is governed by the aforementioned Labour Law. It is established that the 2 releases dated 30/6/2009, 6/1/2011, attributed to the respondent, discharging the appellant's liability for his employment entitlements owed by it, are both void because the first release occurred during the employment relationship and the other occurred within the aforementioned 3 months. Both involved a reduction of his rights arising under the employment contract, as set out in the report of the expert appointed in the case. Since the challenged judgment disregarded both releases, it reached a correct determination. It is not thereafter vitiated by the erroneous legal propositions it stated in disregarding those releases on the ground that the respondent's consent was defective because he signed them under the appellant's domination so that he could transfer to another company, since the Court of Cassation may correct it without cassation. Accordingly, the ground of challenge is without foundation.