Among the general principles governing employment relationships, which the UAE legislator has articulated in Article 43 of Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations (the “Labour Law” ), is the employer’s right to terminate an employment contract, whenever a legitimate reason exists, provided that he complies with the notice period obligations, as agreed upon with the employee in the employment contract, and subject to the employee receiving his statutory labour entitlements.
Nonetheless, and by way of exception, the legislator has permitted employers to dismiss employees without notice in specific cases exhaustively listed under Article 44 of the Labour Law.
This exception, however, is not absolute. Rather, it is firmly anchored in strict procedural rules that must be strictly and fully respected and satisfied for the dismissal without notice to be considered lawful and effective. Foremost among these is the obligation to conduct a written investigation with the employee regarding the alleged misconduct, in addition to issuing a written and reasoned dismissal decision, duly delivered to the employee by the employer or their representative.
This principle has been recently reaffirmed by Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (the “Court”). In a recent judgment, Appeal No. 20 of 2025 dated (Labor Cassation), the Court held that conducting an investigation is not a mere formality that may be dispensed with, but rather a mandatory and substantive requirement.
The Mandatory Nature of the Investigation
The Court confirmed that dismissal without notice – even in cases expressly provided for under Article 44, such as unjustified absence – does not arise automatically upon the occurrence of the ground for dismissal. Instead, it is conditional upon conducting an investigation, with the employee, regarding the alleged violation.
The Court emphasized that such investigation constitutes a fundamental safeguard for the employee, ensuring their right to be heard and to present their defence. Accordingly, the employer cannot circumvent this requirement under any circumstances.
A Sole Invitation Is Not Sufficient
A key point highlighted by the Court is that the simple act of sending an invitation to the employee, specifying the date of the investigation, does not, in itself, satisfy the legal requirement of the prescribed obligation.
In the case at hand, the employer argued that it had sent an email inviting the employee to attend an investigation meeting, which the employee failed to attend. The employer relied on this fact as justification for immediate dismissal without notice. However, the Court rejected the employer’s argument and held that:
- The employee’s failure to attend does not relieve the employer from the obligation to conduct an actual investigation;
- nor does such absence justify abandoning this essential procedural requirement.
Permissibility of Conducting the Investigation in the Employee’s Absence
While reaffirming the mandatory nature of the investigation, the Court adopted a balanced approach by clarifying that:
- The investigation may be conducted in the employee’s absence of the employee;
- Provided that the employee has been duly notified of the investigation and given the opportunity to attend.
Accordingly, the employee’s failure or refusal to attend does not exempt the employer from conducting the investigation. The employer must still carry out and properly document the investigation and its findings to satisfy the conditions of Article 44, even in the employee’s absence.
Consequences of Failing to Conduct the Investigation
The Court concluded that, in the event of the employer’s failure to conduct the investigation, and compliance with the conditions of Article 44, certain consequences arise. Namely:
- The employer cannot exercise the right of dismissal without notice; and
- if the dismissal occurs, the employer becomes liable to make payment in lieu of notice to the employee.
Conclusion
In this judgment, the Court established a clear judicial approach confirming that dismissal without notice is not a discretionary right of the employer, but rather a restricted right subject to strict procedural safeguards, foremost among them the requirement to conduct a proper investigation.
It further reinforces an important practical principle: A simple invitation sent to the employee to attend an investigation session is not sufficient; an actual investigation must be carried out, even in the employee’s absence, provided that proper notice has been given.
This approach reinforces employee protection while maintaining a fair balance between the employer’s interests and the employee’s right to defend themselves before such a severe disciplinary measure is imposed. Additionally, it allows the court to review the process and ensure proper compliance with Article 44 of Labour Law.
Our Recommendation
Based on the above case summary, it is highly recommended that employers ensure that a formal investigation is conducted and properly documented, whenever relying on any of the grounds set out under Article 44. Importantly, the investigation must be carried out even if the employee fails to attend, provided that they have been duly notified of the investigation.
Maintaining clear records throughout the entire process – such as including the notice served to the employee, documentation of the investigation proceedings, and the investigation findings – is essential for demonstrating legal compliance and to mitigate the risk of claims for compensation in lieu for notice.
Seek Legal Counsel
Should you wish to further discuss the evolving trends within UAE court rulings related to termination of employment and disciplinary procedures, please feel free to reach out to Bassem Ehab, Senior Associate, or Salwa Baageel, Associate.