English

Legal Cases for EOSB Deprivation (Article 80)

By Saad AlSahli , LL.M. (Intl. Commercial Law, Univ. of Sussex) | Saudi Licensed Lawyer
Legal advisor reviewing Article 80 termination documents under Saudi Labor Law, symbolizing EOSB deprivation due to serious misconduct.

The core of employee protection in Saudi Arabia lies in the End-of-Service Benefit (EOSB). However, Article 80 of the Saudi Labor Law defines the narrow, legally specific circumstances under which an employer may terminate a contract instantly without paying EOSB, advance notice, or indemnity. This guide breaks down these severe misconduct clauses and the strict procedural rules employers must follow to legally enforce deprivation.

I. Defining the Purpose of Article 80 Saudi Arabia (KSA)

A. The Exclusive Basis for Termination Without Dues

Article 80 outlines the specific and legally defined circumstances under which an employer may terminate a worker's employment contract. This article is significant because it provides the exclusive legal basis for an employer to terminate a worker without granting them the end-of-service award (EOSB), advance notice, or any indemnity.

The termination clauses listed under Article 80 cover cases of severe employee misconduct, such as assault, deliberate failure to follow safety instructions, engagement in dishonest acts, forgery, unauthorized absence, or disclosure of secrets.

B. The Mandatory Procedural Requirement (Right to Object)

A crucial condition placed upon the employer when utilizing Article 80 is the mandatory procedural requirement to allow the worker an opportunity to present their case. The employer is required to give the worker a chance to state his reasons for objecting to the termination before the contract is ultimately dissolved.

II. Legal Principles: EOSB Deprivation vs. Standard Termination

A. Standard Entitlement Under Saudi Law (Articles 84 and 85)

Under normal circumstances, when the employment relationship ends, the worker is legally entitled to the End-of-Service Award (EOSB).

B. The Consequence of Article 80: Complete Forfeiture

Article 80 stands as the definitive exception to the standard rules of entitlement established in Articles 84 and 85. If the employer successfully proves that the worker committed one of the specified acts of severe misconduct, the termination is enacted without an award, advance notice, or indemnity.

⚠️ Warning

Termination under Article 80 results in the complete forfeiture of all three major termination entitlements: the EOSB, the advance notice period pay, and any related compensation or indemnity.

III. Misconduct Categories Leading to EOSB Deprivation (Article 80)

Article 80 outlines the limited and justifiable circumstances under which an employer may terminate the contract and legally deprive the worker of the EOSB.

  • Violence and Assault (Clause 1): If the worker assaults the employer, the responsible manager, one of their superiors, or subordinates during work or because of it.
  • Breach of Contractual Obligations and Safety (Clause 2): If the worker fails to perform their essential obligations, disobeys lawful instructions, or deliberately disregards safety instructions despite receiving a written warning.
  • Misconduct, Fraud, and Status (Clauses 3, 5, 6): Covers acts that violate honor or integrity, use of forgery to obtain the job, or termination during the Probationary Status. Probationary Period Rules and Termination.
  • Financial Damage (Clause 4): If the worker intentionally commits any act or negligence intended to cause material loss to the employer.

🚨 Mandatory Procedure

For this clause, the employer must report the incident to the competent authorities within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the occurrence.

  • Exploitation and Disclosure of Secrets (Clauses 8 & 9): If the worker unlawfully takes advantage of their position for personal gain or discloses work-related industrial or commercial secrets.

Review the 10 Specific Article 80 Cases in Detail.

IV. Deep Dive: Loss of EOSB Due to Unjustified Absence (Article 80, Clause 7)

Termination based on absence without a legitimate reason is governed by a strict set of thresholds and mandatory prior warnings. Detailed Guide: EOSB Loss Due to Unjustified Absence.

A. Unjustified Absence Thresholds

EOSB deprivation due to absence occurs if the worker is absent without valid reason for either of the following limits:

  • Intermittent Absence: More than thirty (30) days in a single contractual year.
  • Consecutive Absence: More than fifteen (15) consecutive days.

B. Procedural Requirements (Written Warnings)

The dismissal must be preceded by mandatory written warnings:

  • Intermittent Absence Warning: Issued after accumulating twenty (20) days of intermittent absence.
  • Consecutive Absence Warning: Issued after ten (10) consecutive days of absence.

V. Key Legal Requirements and Worker SafeguGGuards

The severe nature of termination under Article 80 is balanced by specific legal safeguards provided to the worker.

A. The Worker’s Right to Objection (Procedural Fairness)

Article 80 explicitly mandates that the employer must provide the worker with due process before imposing termination for cause: the employer is obligated to give the worker a chance to state his reasons for objecting to the termination before the contract is ultimately dissolved.

B. Dispute Resolution and the Role of Labour Courts

Should a worker dispute a termination issued under Article 80, the case will ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts.

  • Exclusive Jurisdiction: Labour Courts have the exclusive right to consider all disputes arising from work contracts.
  • Time Limit for Claims: Any claim must generally be filed within twelve months of the date the employment relationship ended.

VI. Summary of Article 80 Compliance for Employers

Termination of an employment contract under Article 80 is strictly contingent upon procedural adherence. Failure to strictly follow these procedural fairness and evidence requirements risks converting a deprivation (Article 80) into an illegal termination, potentially obligating the employer to pay significant compensation and benefits.

Any unresolved disputes or questions must be formally directed to the relevant Saudi authorities for official clarification and binding decisions.

Make EOSB Calculation Effortless

The End-of-Service Benefit (EOSB) involves complex rules from the Saudi Labor Law. Simplify the entire process with our Saudi End-of-Service Benefits Calculator, built for full compliance with Articles 84-88 and beyond. Instantly estimate your exact entitlement based on your actual wage, service duration, and specific separation reason (resignation, termination, contract type) - all in one place and completely FREE.

Use Our End-of-Service Benefits Calculator

FAQs about Legal Cases for EOSB Deprivation

What is the definitive purpose of Article 80 of the Saudi Labor Law?
Article 80 of the Saudi Labor Law is significant because it defines the exclusive legal basis for an employer to terminate a worker’s contract without providing them the End-of-Service Award (EOSB), advance notice, or any indemnity. This article outlines specific and legally defined circumstances covering cases of severe employee misconduct. Article 80 serves as the definitive exception to the standard entitlement rules established in Articles 84 and 85.
What specific entitlements does a worker forfeit if successfully terminated under Article 80?
Termination enacted under Article 80 results in the complete forfeiture of all three major termination entitlements. If the employer successfully proves the worker committed one of the specified acts of severe misconduct, the worker forfeits the following:
  • The End-of-Service Benefit (EOSB).
  • Advance notice period pay.
  • Any related compensation or indemnity.
What mandatory procedural safeguard must the employer follow before enforcing termination under Article 80?
A crucial, mandatory procedural requirement is placed upon the employer when utilizing Article 80: the employer must provide the worker with due process. The employer is obligated to give the worker a chance to state his reasons for objecting to the termination before the contract is ultimately dissolved. Failure to strictly adhere to this procedural fairness requirement risks converting the deprivation into an illegal termination.
What are the thresholds for losing the EOSB due to consecutive, unjustified absence?
EOSB deprivation due to absence without a legitimate reason is governed by strict procedural thresholds and prior warnings. For consecutive absence, the worker can be deprived of the EOSB if they are absent without a valid reason for more than fifteen (15) consecutive days.

To enforce this deprivation, the employer must precede the dismissal with a mandatory written warning issued after ten (10) consecutive days of absence.
What are examples of severe misconduct categories that can lead to EOSB deprivation?
Article 80 specifies limited and justifiable circumstances under which an employer may legally deprive the worker of the EOSB. These severe misconduct clauses include:
  • Violence and Assault against the employer, a manager, or superiors/subordinates during work or because of it.
  • Deliberate disregard of safety instructions despite receiving a written warning.
  • Engagement in dishonest acts, forgery, or use of forgery to obtain the job.
  • If the worker discloses work-related industrial or commercial secrets.
  • If the worker unlawfully takes advantage of their position for personal gain.
Are there additional reporting requirements when termination under Article 80 is based on financial damage?
Yes, there is an extra mandatory procedure if the termination is based on the clause regarding Financial Damage. This clause applies if the worker intentionally commits any act or negligence intended to cause material loss to the employer. For this specific clause (Clause 4), the employer must report the incident to the competent authorities within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the occurrence.
Where must a worker file a claim if they dispute a termination enforced under Article 80?
Should a worker dispute a termination issued under Article 80, the case will fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. Any claim must generally be filed within a time limit of twelve (12) months from the date the employment relationship ended.