Saudi: Iqama-holding 'illegal workers' can sue employers

[email protected] (Arab News)
April 2, 2013

arab
Jeddah, Apr 2: Inspection rounds made by government officers to limit labor breaches have pushed people working under sponsors other than their own to submit their resignation from their jobs, resulting in the refusal of some employers to pay them their dues under the pretext they don't have sponsors.

In a telephone call to Arab News, Khaled Abu Rashed, a lawyer, said: “From a legal point of view, any employee can take the employer to court if he refuses to give him any outstanding dues, such as vacation pay, unfair dismissal pay or end-of-term service benefits under the pretext that the employee is not under his sponsorship. In such cases, the employee can file a complaint with the Labor Office.”

He added: “We hear many stories of employers who won't give their employees their rights or delay their payments, thinking they are not entitled because they are violators and don't work for their sponsors.”

He also pointed out that the common employer practice of giving employees compulsory vacation is also illegal and that it is better to rectify their legal position by allowing for their transfer to another sponsor rather than forcing them into hiding.

Justice Ministry spokesman Hattab Al Enizi said in a phone interview with Arab News that the employer, sponsor and employee should all be prosecuted for illegal practice. He stressed the fact that anyone with a valid residency, even if he doesn't work with his sponsor, can file a complaint with the local employment office.

Legally, Majed Qaroub said: “We can't say expatriate laborers should face severe punishment and deportation. We should not forget the employers who have been exploiting human needs. Their actions are an explicit violation of the laws and regulations of this country and they should pay the cost of deportation of violators.

“Those not working under the sponsorship of their company should be deported according to the law, even if they were born in this country, but nonetheless, local authorities and the Ministry of Labor should make exceptions in individual cases."

Deputy Labor Minister Mefrej Al Haqabani said in a statement that the ministry was and is still carrying out its routine inspections of establishments to make sure they abide by work regulations and its complimentary resolutions. He added that ministry's inspectors carry their official ID cards which they are required to show during inspection visits and calls on all establishments to rectify their work status to avoid punishment.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 24,2024

siddaramaiah.jpg

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
October 3,2024

brahmingundurao.jpg

Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao reminded that V D Savarkar was not against cow slaughter as he himself was non-veg eater, PTI reported on Thursday.

"As a Brahmin he was eating meat, and he was openly propagating eating meat," said the minister at an event in Bengaluru.

Reacting to Gundu Rao's claim, BJP MP Anurag Thakur called Congress a "factory of lies" as he warned that India won't tolerate any disrespect towards Savarkar.

"By disrespecting Veer Savarkar they have shown that they don't respect freedom fighters. During the Congress government, Sardar Bhagat Singh was termed a separatist in textbooks...By making those who want to break the nation join the congress party, Rahul Gandhi is taking forward the ideology of 'tukde tukde' and he is a 'modern Jinnah' who speaks ill of the country abroad...," he said.

Meanwhile, a court in Maharashtra's Nashik district summoned Congress MP Rahul Gandhi earlier this week in a defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks against the Hindutva ideologue.

The complainant, who is the director of an NGO, claimed he watched a press conference addressed by Gandhi in Hingoli and also a speech made by the Congress leader in November 2022.

He alleged that Gandhi, on the two occasions, by his words and visual representations knowingly harmed the reputation of Veer Savarkar and also tried to defame the latter's image in the society.

According to the complainant, Gandhi said "Savarkar is BJP and RSS jin" which was defamatory in nature.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.