Labor disputes - wage arrears recognized by the defendant to the plaintiffs
Z., K., V., M., K., R., E., T., Ch., Sh., Ya. appealed to the court with a claim for the recovery of wages from the Partnership, which does not dispute the existence of wage arrears to the named employees in the amounts submitted by them for recovery. The Bank is involved in the case as a third party on the defendant's side. By the decision of the Medeu District Court of Almaty dated August 16, 2019, the claims of the above-mentioned plaintiffs were denied in full. By the decision of the judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Almaty City Court dated December 23, 2019, the decision of the court of first instance was changed, canceled in the part in which the claim of Z., K, V., K., R., E., T., Ch., Sh., Ya. was rejected, with a new decision on the satisfaction of the claim in this part.: - wage arrears were collected from the Partnership in favor of: Z. – 1,200,000 tenge, K. in the amount of 9,600,000 tenge, V. – 1,200,000 tenge, K. – 6,000,000 tenge, R. – 7,008,000 tenge, E. – 35,004,000 tenge, T. – 3,000,000 tenge, H . – 6,000,000 tenge, Sh. – 1,200,000 tenge, Ya . – 35,004,000 tenge; - the state fee in the amount of 1,052,160 tenge was collected from the Partnership to the state income.
Labor disputes - wage arrears recognized by the defendant to the plaintiffs
In the remaining part (on the refusal to satisfy M.'s claims due to the fact that his claims arise not from an employment relationship, but from a civil law transaction), the decision of the Medeu District Court was left unchanged. The Judicial Board for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court changed the decision of the appellate instance, in terms of satisfaction of the claim it was canceled, leaving in force in this part the decision of the court of first instance on the following grounds. The Medeu District Court motivated the refusal to satisfy the claims by concluding that the wages of employees of the Plaintiff Partnership had been unreasonably overestimated in the absence of data on the company's production activities, that it was doubtful that they had performed their work functions for 11 months without pay, that there was no reliable evidence of wage arrears for 2014, or contributions to the pension fund. the foundation. The court also pointed out that the recognition of the claim by the defendant entails a violation of the rights and legitimate interests of a third party, the Bank, to which the defendant, according to a valid court decision, has outstanding debts. By changing the decision of the court of first instance and satisfying the demands of ten plaintiffs for the recovery of wages, the Almaty City Court referred to the recognition of the claim in full by the Partnership at the court session. Having pointed out that all unavoidable doubts and contradictions regarding the calculation and payment of wages should be interpreted in favor of employees, and the district court, in violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional right to remuneration for work, defended the interests of a large financial company represented by a Bank, the court of appeal found there were no grounds for refusing to satisfy the claims of all plaintiffs, except M.
In addition, the Court of Appeal noted that the Bank is the mortgagee of a number of real estate owned by the Partnership, the market value of which, according to the debtor's estimates, fully satisfies both the creditor's and plaintiffs' claims for the recovery of wages. The Judicial Board of the Supreme Court found these conclusions of the court of appeal to be untenable, inconsistent with the factual circumstances, unsupported by the evidence examined in the case, based on the incorrect application of substantive law. The materials of the civil case established that the wage arrears acknowledged by the defendant to the plaintiffs were not confirmed by reliable data, and the evidence provided to confirm the amount of the plaintiffs' salaries and the Partnership's debts to them did not meet the criteria of admissibility. The court of first instance lawfully took into account that some of the plaintiffs' employees, to whom the defendant acknowledges the debt, are affiliated with the participants of the Partnership and among themselves (E., E., Ch., Ya.). Currently, the plaintiffs, in fact, in violation of the provisions of Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, have committed abuse of law, which is regarded by the court as unfair behavior. All contracts with the plaintiffs were concluded on the same day, January 3, 2014, on almost identical terms. There is a reference in the contract to the data of an identity document that has not yet been issued by the authorized body at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The amount of wages specified in the contracts for some employees, in particular, for affiliated persons (R., Y., H., M., T.), is unreasonably overestimated. The information provided by the defendant and the plaintiffs on the salaries of the latter contradicts the financial statements, information from the accumulative pension fund, which does not confirm the fact of mandatory pension contributions in appropriate amounts. By the decision of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of Almaty (hereinafter referred to as the SMEC) dated October 9, 2018, the Partnership was denied the rehabilitation procedure and it was established that the debtor did not have any income from sales during the 2015-2017 financial years. That is, during the specified period, the Partnership did not conduct business activities, which is confirmed by the information indicated in its corporate income tax returns on form 100.00, as well as data from the debtor's financial statements. In the same decision, the court questioned the existence of the Partnership's actual debt to employees in the total amount of 1,163,065,056 tenge.
Labor disputes - wage arrears recognized by the defendant to the plaintiffs
The decision of the court of first instance provides a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by the plaintiffs and the defendant, which was given a proper legal assessment in full compliance with the requirements of Articles 64-68 of the CPC. In particular, on the basis of objectively and comprehensively researched data, the district court made a reasonable conclusion that the defendant's recognition of the plaintiffs' claims was due to his goal to avoid fulfilling his obligations to the Bank under credit line agreements, bank loan agreements dated July 5, 2007 No. 1800/07/100/7-1, dated August 6, 2007 No. 1800/07/100/7-2, from the execution of legally binding decisions of the Council of Economic and Social Council of September 29, 2011, October 18, 2013, February 2, 2014 on the recovery of debts from the Partnership in favor of the Bank in the amount of 85 384 849 tenge, 1,505,154,023 tenge, 361,215,456.89 tenge, 155,347,827.95 Russian rubles, expenses for payment of state duty in the amount of 27,893,655.20 tenge. The circumstances established by the above judicial acts, by virtue of part 2 of Article 76 of the CPC, were correctly taken into account by the court of first instance as having prejudicial significance in the present case.
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
