STOCK END OF SERVICE
An employee who worked 6 years at a private company, signed waiver for end-of-service benefits and was terminated without notice, seeks legal advice. Image for illustrative purposes only. Image Credit: Shutterstock

Question:

I have been working in a private company for 6 years. Last year, I signed a waiver of my right regarding the end-of-service benefits, and currently my employer has terminated my services and has not allowed me to work during the notice period. What is the position of the law regarding the waiver agreement that I signed with my employer? Also in the employment contract, it is stated that I cannot work for a competitor. Does this condition apply to me, considering that the employer is the one who dismissed me? Please advise.

Answer:

Regarding the waiver of your rights, it is considered null and void because it is contradicting with the provisions of the Labour Law No. 33 of 2021, as per its Article 65 clause 3: “Each provision contradicting the provisions hereof, even if it was existing prior to its enforcement, shall be deemed null and void, unless it is more beneficial to the worker. Each discharge, reconciliation or waiver of the rights arising for the worker hereunder shall be null and void if it violates its provisions”. Which means that you are still entitled to your end-of-service rights and you have to file a case if the employer refuses to settle amicably.

As per Article 10 of the above-mentioned law, the non-competition clause shall be nullified if the employer terminates the employment contract in violation of the provisions of law. The Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022 on the Implementation of the Labour Law in its Article 12 states that the non-competition clause shall not apply if the reason for terminating the contract is attributed to the employer or the breach of his legal or contractual obligations.

However, if a dispute arises over the non-competition clause and it is not settled amicably, the matter shall be referred to the judiciary and the burden of proving the alleged damage shall be on the employer.