Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 553

Summary: - The arbitration panel for collective labour disputes. Its composition. Article 128 of Law 6/2010 concerning labour in the private sector. Its possession of the powers of the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of the law, the organization of the judiciary and the provisions of the Procedural Law. Its decisions must be reasoned and are deemed equivalent to judgments issued by the Court of Appeal. Article 130 of the same Law. Its implication. Its decisions may be challenged by way of cassation. Reason therefor: had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have expressly provided for the finality of those decisions. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that, as regards its susceptibility to challenge, a judgment is subject to the law in force at the time it takes effect. Article 128 of Law No. 6 of 2010 concerning labour in the private sector, during the operation of whose provisions the challenged arbitration panel decision was issued, provides that "The arbitration panel for collective labour disputes shall be constituted as follows:- One of the circuits of the Court of Appeal designated annually by the general assembly of that Court 2- A chief prosecutor seconded by the Public Prosecutor 3- A representative of the competent ministry appointed by its minister. The parties to the dispute or their legal representatives shall appear before the panel. Article 130 of the same Law also provides that the arbitration panel shall have all the powers of the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of the law, the organization of the judiciary and the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Law, and its decisions shall be reasoned and shall be equivalent to judgments issued by the Court of Appeal." This provision is plain and clear in making decisions issued by the arbitration panel for collective labour disputes equivalent to judgments issued by the Court of Appeal, which means that they may be challenged by way of cassation. Had the legislature intended otherwise, it would have expressly so provided, as it did when it stipulated the finality of those decisions in Article 88 of Private Sector Labour Law No. 38 of 1964. Accordingly, the objection must be rejected and the challenge held permissible.