A claim for compensation for moral damage and invalidation of the order
To the Karasai District Court of the Almaty region
040900Kaskelen, Momyshuly St.,5.
8-72771-7-99-04; 8-747-690-90-08.
The plaintiff: D E B
IIN 7.....
Almaty region, ......
Representative by proxy:
Kenesbek Islam Mukhameduly
Member of the Chamber of Legal
consultants "Justus"
IIN 970103300774
79 Abylai Khan Ave., office 304, Almaty.
islam.ala.1@mail.ru
+7 (708) 971 78 58.
Defendant: LLP "...."
BEAN ....
040900, Almaty region, Karasai district, Kaskelen city, street ....., building 197.
...
+7 777 .....
Third parties:
Department of the State Labor Inspectorate for the Almaty region
BIN: 240840039934
040000, Konaev, 5th microdistrict 53/1.
+7 (72-772) 2-80-43
enbek@almobl.gov.kz.
THE CLAIM
on compensation for moral damage and invalidation of the order
On September 1, 2021, an employment contract No. 123-21 was concluded between the employer of .... LLP (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) and the employee D. E. B. (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff). On the basis of the Defendant's order no. - 268 bos dated 09/01/2021, the Plaintiff was hired as a storekeeper.
On April 10, 2024, an accident occurred with the Plaintiff at the workplace, namely, on the Defendant's territory in a warehouse of finished products, the driver of an electric loader (kara) With B., while performing his duties, driving in reverse, hit the warehouse manager with E.B., who received bodily injuries (the degree of harm to health established in as a result of a forensic medical examination, it was classified as moderate damage).
On May 22, 2024, after the formation of the accident investigation Commission, the Defendant issued Act No. 1 on an accident related to work. According to the act of special investigation dated 05/21/2024, the commission appointed by Order No. 37 dated 04/22/2024 the head of the KSU "Department of Labor Inspection of Almaty", the cause of the accident was:
- unsatisfactory organization of work by the head of the warehouse, N.V.E. LLP, expressed in the failure to provide safe working conditions for warehouse workers, namely, not applying road markings to ensure the movement of pedestrians and technological vehicles in safe conditions. Violated the requirements of clause 4 of art. 184 of the Labor Contract of the Republic of Kazakhstan and clause 2.21. clause 2.2 of the Job description of the warehouse manager, approved by the director of LLP " " dated 04.01.2023.
The driver of the forklift truck With B. violated the requirements of clause 3.8, Safety Instructions No. 1 for the loader driver, approved by the head of MKS L LLP dated 07.07.2023. exactly:
- during operation, the loader driver is obliged to carefully monitor the actions and locations of the workers in the loader area, give an audible signal and make sure that the workers heard it and reacted, If pedestrians do not leave the road, stop the loader.
Failure to conduct training, instruction, and knowledge testing on occupational safety and health issues with the Plaintiff, an engineer for Biotech A.A., which is a violation of clause 2, clause 2, Article 182 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which stipulates that the employer is required to conduct training, instruction, and knowledge testing of employees on occupational safety and health issues, as well as to ensure documents on the safe conduct of the production process and work at their own expense.
Conclusions of the commission on the connection of the accident with the proceedings on persons who committed violations of labor legislation.: the commission, having examined the scene of the accident, having carefully studied the regulatory documents, having studied the explanatory notes of the representatives of MKS L LLP, considers this accident with the Plaintiff to be related to work, with the registration of an accident certificate and registration with MKS L LLP. The degree of the employer's guilt is 100%, the degree of the employee's guilt is 0%.
These circumstances collectively confirm that the accident was solely the fault of the employer, which was directly established by the special investigation commission. This conclusion is of crucial legal importance, as it demonstrates that the Defendant committed gross violations of labor legislation and labor protection regulations by failing to ensure safe working conditions, organization of the production process, and control over compliance with safety requirements by authorized employees.
The accident was a direct result of the Defendant's systemic negligence, which resulted in the absence of mandatory road markings, the lack of organization of warehouse routes for loading equipment, as well as the failure of the occupational safety and health engineer A.A.A. to train and instruct employees, which is a direct violation of the requirements of paragraph 2, paragraph 2, art. 182 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The employer was obliged to provide employees with instructions on how to work safely, conduct briefings, knowledge testing and safety monitoring, but they did not fulfill these duties. Moreover, the head of the warehouse, N.V.E., did not ensure the organization of a safe production process, allowing staff and loading equipment to work without appropriate measures to delimit pedestrian and vehicle movement zones, which directly violates the requirements of art. 184 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and her official duties.
As a result of the violations, the loader driver acted without observing the necessary precautions and violated the requirements of the Safety Instructions for the loader driver, which is also confirmed by the investigation materials. All these circumstances are causally related to the consequences that have occurred in the form of an industrial injury of moderate severity for the Plaintiff.
The injury caused a significant and persistent deterioration in the Plaintiff's health, which is confirmed by the act of medical and social expertise No. 1240363-2100 dated 04.11.2024, according to which the third disability group was established for E.B., loss of general working capacity of 50% and professional working capacity of 55%, while the degree of ability to work is defined as the first, which indicates a persistent limitation vital activity. The nature and extent of the injuries, the need for surgical intervention, subsequent long-term treatment, rehabilitation and limitation of motor function directly indicate the severity of the damage caused.
By the Defendant's order dated May 20, 2024, the amount of 500,000 tenge was paid to the Plaintiff, but this amount is nominal and does not even cover the actual amount of actual treatment and rehabilitation costs, amounting to more than 676,552 tenge, which is confirmed by relevant documents. Paying only part of the expenses, and even in the minimum amount, does not relieve the employer from the obligation to compensate for the full damage caused, as required by Articles 157, 158, 161 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and Articles 917, 921, 922 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The law establishes the obligation of the employer to reimburse all expenses related to treatment, purchase of medicines, procedures, rehabilitation, care, lost earnings, as well as moral damage caused by harm to health.
Additionally, the Plaintiff draws the court's attention to the fact that the criminal case against the loader driver With B.A., registered in the ERDR No. 247519031000959, was terminated on November 13, 2024 under Article 68 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in connection with the reconciliation of the parties. Termination of criminal prosecution against the driver as an individual in no way relieves the employer of civil liability for violation of occupational safety requirements, lack of proper organization of the production process and non-compliance with mandatory labor protection standards that caused the accident.
The Claimant's work injury caused her not only severe physical suffering associated with multiple fractures, surgical procedures, prolonged treatment and subsequent restriction of mobility, but also deep emotional and moral distress. The injuries she suffered changed her habitual way of life, limited her ability to fully participate in professional and social activities, and led to a feeling of helplessness and dependence on outside care, as confirmed by the ITU Act establishing group III disability, loss of general and professional ability to work, as well as the need for assisted living and rehabilitation.
All these circumstances combined caused the Plaintiff severe moral harm, expressed in feelings, anxiety, fear of disability, emotional exhaustion associated with forced prolonged treatment, pain, as well as disruption of the habitual rhythm of life and a decrease in the quality of life. These sufferings are a direct result of the improper actions of the employer, which gives the Plaintiff the legal right to demand compensation for moral damage in a fair and proportionate amount.
According to paragraph 1, Article 937 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code), expenses caused by damage to health (for treatment, additional nutrition, purchase of medicines, prosthetics, outside care, sanatorium treatment, purchase of special vehicles, preparation for another profession, and others) are reimbursed by the employer who caused harm to the employee's health., within the limits established by the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
917 of the Civil Code, damage (property and (or) non-property) caused by unlawful actions (inaction) to property or non-property benefits and rights of citizens and legal entities is subject to compensation by the person who caused the damage in full.
On March 05, 2025, the Defendant issued Order No. 66 l/s on termination of the employment contract with her under subclause. 6) paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "non-compliance of an employee with his position or work performed due to a state of health." In violation of the requirement of art. 61 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Defendant did not hand over to the Plaintiff or did not send her by registered mail with a notification of its delivery to this day. The order was received from the labor inspectorate when reviewing our complaint regarding the verification of the legality of the dismissal.
The Plaintiff does not agree with this order on the following grounds:
According to the act of medical and social expertise No. 1240363-2100 dated 04.11.2024, she was diagnosed with the third disability group, loss of general working capacity in the amount of 50% and professional working capacity - 55%. At the same time, section 2 of the act states: "Ability to work – I degree," which means maintaining the ability to work and the ability to continue working if appropriate conditions are created.
Certificate of general disability No. 3240363-911 dated 11/04/2024 confirms only partial disability (50%), but does not contain a conclusion on the complete inability to perform work.
The conclusion of the medical advisory commission No. 57 dated 02/18/2025 also does not contain a direct conclusion that the Plaintiff cannot perform work in his position.
By virtue of Article 52 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, dismissal under subclause 6 of clause 1 is allowed only if there is a medical report confirming the impossibility of continuing work. However, the submitted documents confirm only a partial restriction, and not a complete unfitness for work.
In addition, according to the Order of the Minister of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11/24/2020 № KR DSM-200/2020 "On approval of the rules for temporary transfer to lighter work for health reasons", if there was a conclusion of the HCC, the employer was obliged to consider the issue of temporary transfer of the employee to lighter work for the period specified in the medical report, and not dismiss. The Defendant did not do this, thus violating the requirements of the specified Order and the Plaintiff's labor rights.
The defendant also did not offer her alternative positions or changes in working conditions, which contradicts the principle of preserving the employee's labor rights, enshrined in Articles 22, 48, 52 and 54 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
In addition, on October 2, 2025, the Plaintiff appealed to the Department of the State Labor Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the Almaty region with a complaint about the illegality of dismissal and violation by the employer of the requirements of labor legislation. Based on the results of the review of the appeal, on October 23, 2025, the Department sent a response, the content of which is essential for this dispute and confirms the violations committed by the employer.
During the inspection by the state labor inspector, it was established that the employer violated the requirements of paragraph 4 of Article 113 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since the final settlement with the employee was made only on April 02, 2025, that is, almost a month after the termination of the employment contract. The Inspection explicitly recognized that this fact is a violation of the law, for which an order was issued to the management of MKS L LLP and the responsible person was brought to administrative responsibility.
The Inspection also confirmed that the employer had no legal grounds for dismissing D.E.B. under the sub-clause. 6) paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, since the submitted medical documents do not contain a conclusion that it is impossible for her to continue her work. The state body noted that the employer should have considered temporarily transferring the employee to easier work, as required by the Order of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. KR DSM-200/2020, but did not do so in a timely manner.
It is particularly significant that the employer offered D.E.B. light work only after conducting an inspection of the labor inspectorate and sending the inspector's recommendations to the employer. So, as indicated in the official response of the Department, only on October 20, 2025, MKS L LLP sent a notification to D.E.B. about the provision of light work (the position of a video surveillance operator), which directly confirms: Prior to the intervention of government agencies, the employer had not taken any measures to comply with medical recommendations and preserve the workplace.
Thus, the labor inspectorate's response confirms the illegality of the employer's actions both in dismissing the Plaintiff and in failing to fulfill the obligation to provide her with suitable working conditions according to medical reports. The facts of violations established by the State body objectively confirm the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's claims against the employer and reinforce the conclusion that it is necessary to protect her violated labor rights.
In addition, on July 25, 2025, the Plaintiff sent a pre-trial claim to the Defendant demanding compensation for the actual costs incurred for treatment and rehabilitation. However, by a letter dated August 01, 2025, the employer refused to satisfy the stated requirements, explaining the refusal by the lack of documentary evidence of all the amounts claimed and claiming that the previously provided financial assistance in the amount of 737,000 tenge allegedly already exceeds the costs incurred. This refusal contradicts the case file and does not reflect the actual amount of money spent by the Plaintiff, confirmed by medical documents and receipts.
Subsequently, fulfilling the requirement of Article 159 of the Labor Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the need to apply to the conciliation commission before going to court, on October 2, 2025, the Plaintiff sent an application for the resolution of an individual labor dispute. However, to date, no response has been received from the Defendant, which indicates that the Defendant has avoided participating in the conciliation procedure and violated the procedure established by law for considering labor disputes.
In accordance with Part 4 of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, citizens and legal entities must act in good faith, reasonably and fairly in exercising their rights, observing the requirements contained in the legislation, the moral principles of society, and entrepreneurs - also the rules of business ethics. This obligation cannot be excluded or limited by the contract. Good faith, reasonableness and fairness of the actions of participants in civil law relations are assumed.
According to paragraph 1 of Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, at the request of the party in whose favor the decision was made, the court awards, on the other hand, the costs incurred by her to pay for the assistance of a representative (several representatives) who participated in the process and is not in an employment relationship with this party, in the amount of the costs actually incurred by the party.
According to paragraph 14 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 27, 2015 No. 7 "On the application of legislation on compensation by Courts", when considering claims for the recovery of wages and compensation for moral damage, the courts must bear in mind that, on the basis of article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), everyone has the right to freedom of work, free choice of occupation and profession, working conditions that meet the requirements of safety and hygiene, remuneration for work without any discrimination. Illegal dismissal, late payment of wages are a violation of the constitutional right of an employee to remuneration for work, which entails a violation of the non-property rights of citizens who are subject to protection when filing a claim for recovery of wages.
As a result of her unlawful dismissal, the Plaintiff was deprived of her salary and a stable source of income, which inevitably led to serious moral distress. The Defendant's unlawful actions put the Plaintiff in a state of constant stress and emotional tension, causing a sense of vulnerability, injustice and personal inferiority. Throughout the entire period, from the moment of dismissal to the present, the Plaintiff has been experiencing anxiety, insecurity, a sense of insecurity and deep inner discomfort, which indicates that significant moral harm has been inflicted on her, which is directly causally related to the illegal actions of the employer.
According to the requirements of Article 952 of the Civil Code, moral damage is compensated in monetary form. Therefore, based on the criteria of reasonableness and fairness, we estimate the amount of compensation for moral damage at 2,000,000 tenge.
Thus, taking into account the above circumstances, we ask you to collect from the Defendant the amount for the time of forced absenteeism for the period from March to September 2025 for 6 months of 230,000 tenge for a total of 1,380,000 tenge for 6 months.
According to paragraph 1 of Article 616 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Taxes and Other Mandatory Payments", the following are exempt from paying state duty in courts: - plaintiffs - for claims for recovery of wages and other claims related to work. Also, in accordance with paragraph 13, Article 616 of the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, persons with disabilities are exempt from paying state fees in courts.
Based on the above, we believe that the dispute between the parties in this case has not been resolved, the employer, having dismissed for far-fetched reasons, acted unlawfully, and therefore the Plaintiff is forced to go to court to protect his rights, legitimate interests, and restore justice.
Based on the above, guided by Article 952 of the Civil Code and the labor legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
I ASK THE COURT:
• To recognize the Order of MKS L LLP dated 03/05/2025 on termination of the employment contract with D E B as illegal;
• Reinstate D E B at work at MKS L LLP in her previous position (or another position corresponding to her state of health);
• Collect from MKS L LLP in favor of D E B for the period of forced absenteeism an amount of 1,380,000 (one million three hundred and eighty thousand) tenge;
• Collect compensation for moral damage in the amount of 2,000,000 (two million) tenge from MKS L LLP in favor of D E B.
• Collect compensation for moral damage in the amount of 2,000,000 (two million) tenge from MKS L LLP in favor of D E B.
• Collect from MKS L LLP in favor of D E B representative expenses in the amount of 400,000 tenge.
With respect,
Representative by proxy: Kenesbek I.M.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
