Qatar- QICDRC has no jurisdiction over employment disputes between QFZA and its employees

Qatar- QICDRC Appellate Division: In a very important judgment issued on 30 April 2024 ([2024]QIC(A)7), QICDRC Appellate Division considered that employment disputes between employees and the QFZA were not to be within the jurisdiction of QICDRC; the employees of QFZA were to be treated no differently to or separately from other public employees and has therefore granted permission to appeal on the issue relating to jurisdiction of QICDRC in disputes between QFZA and its employees that are considered as public employees.

The First Instance Circuit of QICDRC gave a judgment on 5 December 2022 holding that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the Qatar Free Zone Authority (QFZA) and a former employee of QFZA.

The principal issue was as to the correct interpretation of article 44 of the QFZA Law. The First Instance held that it had jurisdiction. QFZA sought permission to appeal this decision and  contended before the First Instance Circuit that the provision in article 44 of the QFZ Law did not cover disputes between the QFZA and its former employee as the provision only includes “Registered individuals”; that article 44 did not apply where there had been agreement to resolve disputes by alternative means and clause 10.4 of the employment agreement provided for such alternative means by providing for the jurisdiction of the Qatari Courts; and that under the provisions of the  Administrative Disputes Law, the dispute with the former employee was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Circuit.

The First Instance Circuit rejected each of these submissions holding that: (i) On a proper interpretation of article 44 of the QFZ Law the term “individual” was to be given its ordinary meaning and not limited to “a Registered individual”; the former employee was an individual. (ii) There was no agreement to settle the dispute by alternative means as the former employee was not bound by the terms set out in the draft employment agreement as, applying the provisions of the Qatari Civil Code (Law No. 22 of 2004), he had never agreed to it; (iii) it was not necessary to consider the extent of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Circuit under the terms of article 43 of the QFZ Law; the provisions of the Administrative Disputes Law No. 7 of 2007 were not applicable to employees of the QFZA; (iv) That conclusion was in line with the evidence of the former employee as to the advice he had been given by Government departments in Qatar.

The Appellate Division considered that the principal issue before the First Instance Circuit was the contention by the QFZA that the reference to “an individual” in article 44 of the QFZ Law meant a registered individual, that is to say, a person who had registered with the QFZA to do business in the Qatar Free Zones. The contention in large part turned on the meaning of “individual”. The distinction made by the First Instance Circuit at paragraph 44 of its judgment on the jurisdiction of this Court was between “individuals and Registered companies” and “individuals and companies Registered in the Free Zones”. It considered that the authoritative original Arabic text of the QFZ Law was clear – it referred to all individuals and not only individuals registered in the Free Zones; the second of the translations was therefore correct. Although the former employee was not an individual registered in the Free Zones, he was within the scope of the second (and correct) translation and not the first.

In its judgment of 30 April 2024, the Appellate Division considered that the question which arises is whether the dispute should be heard by this Court which is a court established by the State of Qatar to determine specified disputes or by a different court likewise established by the State of Qatar; each of the courts established by the State of Qatar is a Qatari Court.

The argument advanced by QFZA on the new issue is that disputes involving public employees are assigned to the Administrative Circuit under the Administrative Disputes Law. There is nothing in the QFZA that affects the status of employees of the QFZA as public employees or gives this Court jurisdiction over a public employee.

The former employee argued that the judgment of the First Instance Circuit was correct and it should be affirmed. The First Instance Circuit had been referred to the Administrative Disputes Law, but considered that article 43 of the QFZ Law made it clear that the laws of the civil service in Qatar were not applicable to the employees of the QFZA. This exemption meant that the claim by the former employee was not within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Circuit.

The Appellate Division’s  judgment highlighted that the decisions of the national Court of Cassation did not deal in any way with the respective jurisdictions of the Administrative Circuit and QICDRC, but simply made it clear that disputes involving public employees in relation to salary and benefits went to the Administrative Circuit rather than to the other courts in the State of Qatar.

In this judgment, the Appellate Division of the QICDRC considered that QFZA employees were to be treated no differently to or separately from other public employees; employment disputes between employees and the QFZA were not to be within the jurisdiction of QICDRC simply through the use of the term “individual”. The Appellate Division found that it is difficult to see why the QFZA or the Government of Qatar would have wanted to provide that public employees of the State would need that jurisdiction when provision was already made such as those under the Administrative Disputes Law.