The Court Dismissed the Plaintiff’s Claims for Compensation in Connection with Unlawful Staff Reduction and for Correction of the Employment Record on the enbek.kz Portal
Civil case No. 7514-26-00-2/9631 was pending before the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty upon the claim of N S.A. against AK LLP (hereinafter – the “LLP” or the “Company”) for recovery of compensation and moral damages and for an order to make corrections.
On 2 September 2024, N S.A. and AK LLP entered into Employment Agreement No. 29/2024, under which the Claimant worked as Chief Accountant with a salary of KZT 750,000 (seven hundred fifty thousand) during the probationary period and KZT 1,000,000 (one million) after completion of the probationary period.
The Defendant, AK LLP, did not have a Conciliation Commission. On 26 March 2025, the management of the LLP orally informed the employees about a “staff reduction” and effectively forced the employees to submit resignation letters “at their own request.”
The Claimant refused to do so. On 27 March 2025, Order No. 4-25-Ө-П was issued, whereby the position of Chief Accountant was removed from the staffing table effective 1 April 2025. The Employer was required to provide one month’s prior notice pursuant to Article 53 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (the “Labour Code”), but limited itself to oral notification three days in advance. On 1 April 2025, the employment agreement was terminated in the enbek.kz system under subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Labour Code.
Following the oral notification of the staff reduction, the Plaintiff N S.A. continued performing her work duties until 7 April 2025, when she was forcibly required to vacate her office. Thereafter, the Plaintiff handed over the documents and files.
Subsequently, AK LLP failed to pay for the days actually worked, explaining that N S.A. had been absent from the workplace.
One week after the internal acts of the Employer entered into force (Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 and the staffing table dated 1 April 2025), a pre-trial claim dated 8 April 2025 was sent to the Defendant, demanding payment of salary for March 2025, compensation for unused annual leave for the period from 2 September 2024 to 7 April 2025, as well as compensation in the amount of the average salary for two months, by 14 April 2025.
The Plaintiff additionally filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Department of the State Labour Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Almaty, as well as with the Prosecutor’s Office of Almaty. Subsequently, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff’s employment agreement on the enbek.kz electronic portal pursuant to subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Labour Code, indicating 1 April 2025 as the termination date.
On 18 April 2025, the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s response to the pre-trial claim dated 8 April 2025, in which the Defendant expressly stated that it had not issued an order for dismissal and demanded that the Plaintiff appear and provide explanations concerning her absence from the workplace from 1 April 2025. Accordingly, the Defendant claimed that Employment Agreement No. 29/2024 dated 2 September 2024 had not been terminated and, thereby contradicting its own internal acts (Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 and the staffing table effective from 1 April 2025), restored the employment agreement on the enbek.kz electronic portal with the above date.
On 6 May 2025, the Plaintiff learned of the Defendant’s notification requiring her to report to work and setting a deadline of 1 May 2025.
At the same time, according to the findings of Labour Inspector E.G. Omarbekova, the head of AK LLP was absent, and therefore the initial inspection could not be conducted. Subsequently, through the enbek.kz electronic portal, the Plaintiff learned that the Defendant had terminated her employment agreement on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Labour Code. Thus, the Defendant failed to comply with the statutory dismissal procedure, thereby violating paragraph 3 of Article 61 of the Labour Code, according to which an employer’s order on termination of an employment agreement must be personally delivered to the employee or sent by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt and by all other available means within three working days from the date of its issuance. No act recording the Plaintiff’s failure to report to work was drawn up either.
The Plaintiff sent a response to the above letters of the Defendant, stating that she disagreed with the order and the act issued.
On 20 May 2025, the Plaintiff filed a repeated complaint with the Department of the State Labour Inspection Committee of the Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan for Almaty in an attempt to resolve the dispute at the pre-trial stage. The following response was received:
Following the inspection, AK LLP was issued an order to eliminate the identified violations, requiring it to calculate and pay a penalty for the period of delayed payment. The legal entity was held administratively liable and fined under Part 1 of Article 87 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences.
In its explanation to the State Labour Inspector, the Defendant stated that Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 and the staffing table dated 1 April 2025 had been cancelled by Order No. 5-25-Ө-П dated 28 March 2025. However, the Defendant had in no way notified the Plaintiff of this during her employment.
Moreover, during the period of her employment, the Defendant instructed the Plaintiff to prepare and send a letter to the subtenants of AK LLP concerning amendments to Sublease Agreement No. 24-32 for non-residential premises dated 30 September 2024 regarding the release of part of the leased premises, including Office No. 406 where the Plaintiff performed her duties. The letter is attached to the case materials and was personally signed by B B.N., Deputy General Director for Marketing, who had the relevant authority delegated by the General Director B G.S. (order and power of attorney).
In its responses to the pre-trial claim, the Defendant never mentioned that Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 and the staffing table dated 1 April 2025 had been cancelled. Moreover, the alleged “absence” from the workplace was identified by the Defendant only two weeks after it became aware of the Plaintiff’s pre-trial claim.
The Department of Labour Inspection for Almaty confirmed the violations and issued an order, holding the Defendant administratively liable and imposing a fine under Article 87 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences.
In fact, the Employer had grossly violated Articles 6, 23, 53, 113 and 131 of the Labour Code, which resulted in material losses and emotional distress to the Claimant.
THE PLAINTIFF REQUESTED THE COURT TO:
- Recover from AK LLP in favour of N S.A. compensation in connection with the staff reduction in the amount of KZT 2,000,000 (two million).
- Recover from AK LLP in favour of N Sary Anuarkyzy compensation for moral damages in the amount of KZT 1,000,000 (one million).
- Recover from AK LLP in favour of N Sary Anuarkyzy one monthly salary for failure to provide timely notice in the amount of KZT 1,000,000 (one million).
- Recover from AK LLP in favour of N Sary Anuarkyzy representative expenses in the amount of KZT 300,000 (three hundred thousand).
- Order AK LLP to make corrections on the enbek.kz portal and indicate the grounds for termination of the employment agreement as staff reduction under subparagraph 3) of paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Labour Code.
The Defendant’s Objections to the Claim
The Plaintiff N S.A. alleges that she was unlawfully dismissed due to staff reduction without prior notice as required by labour legislation.
However, her allegations are inaccurate.
Thus, from the end of 2024, AK LLP experienced a difficult financial situation, which was known to all employees because salaries were not paid on time and were divided into two or three instalments, as a result of which many employees resigned at their own request. N S.A. was fully aware of this, as she was the Company’s Chief Accountant.
Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 on staff reduction was issued prematurely. Due to the need to continue the Company’s operations in order to achieve financial stability, the management of the LLP decided to cancel the order. Accordingly, on 28 March 2025, the LLP issued Order No. 5-25-Ө-П cancelling Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025.
The Company’s employees were informed that the staff reduction had been cancelled and that they should continue working for the LLP. N S.A. was likewise informed that Order No. 4-25-Ө-П dated 27 March 2025 had been cancelled and that she was required to continue performing her duties.
This is confirmed by screenshots of WhatsApp correspondence between N S.A. and B B.N., Executive Director of AK LLP.
In March 2025, N S.A. was on leave for half of the month and, after returning from leave, frequently worked remotely, stating that she was ill and that this arrangement was more convenient for her. She only occasionally came to the workplace. Therefore, her allegations that she had been effectively forced out of her job and had not been provided with a workplace are inaccurate.
Furthermore, despite the reduction in the Company’s overall office space, premises were available and were offered to N S.A. for work. However, N S.A., referring to the fact that she could not work in an office where men worked alongside women, refused to work in the premises offered to her.
From the end of March until the beginning of April 2025, N S.A. continued to perform her duties as Chief Accountant. However, on 7 April 2025, without providing any explanation, she stated that she refused to continue working for the LLP.
Repeated invitations from B B.N., Executive Director of AK LLP, to appear at the LLP’s office to discuss her employment relationship with the LLP were ignored by N S.A.
On 9 April 2025, N S.A. informed B B.N., Executive Director of AK LLP, that she had sent a pre-trial claim. Subsequent invitations from the Executive Director to appear at the office to resolve the situation were likewise ignored.
Accordingly, on 15 April 2025, the LLP sent N S.A. a letter warning her of the need to report to work and of dismissal in the event of failure to report to work. This is confirmed by the receipt of Kazpost JSC dated 15 April 2025.
On 29 April 2025, the LLP sent N S.A. a reminder concerning the need to report to work and the possibility of dismissal in the event of failure to report to work. This is confirmed by the receipt of Kazpost JSC dated 29 April 2025.
However, the LLP received no response from N S.A. to either of the letters requiring her to report to work.
Subsequently, on 30 April 2025, an act was drawn up recording N S.A.’s failure to report to work.
On 2 May 2025, an order was issued terminating N S.A.’s employment agreement, which was sent to her on 6 May 2025, as confirmed by the Kazpost JSC receipt.
We believe that N S.A. acted in bad faith in this situation. Although she did not wish to continue the employment relationship with the LLP, she nevertheless did not submit a resignation letter under her own initiative, despite the right granted to her under Article 56 of the Labour Code.
Thus, we believe that N S.A. pursued the self-serving objective of forcing the LLP to dismiss her at the employer’s initiative with payment of compensation.
For this reason, she also filed complaints with the Labour Inspectorate and the Prosecutor’s Office alleging that she had been unlawfully dismissed.
However, the inspection conducted by the Department of Labour Inspection for Almaty did not identify any violations in relation to the termination of N S.A.’s employment agreement. This is evidenced by the fact that N S.A. did not attach the Labour Inspectorate’s response to her complaint to the statement of claim.
The Labour Inspectorate identified only violations concerning delayed payment of wages and penalties for delayed payment of wages.
In this regard, an administrative offence report was drawn up under Part 1 of Article 187 of the Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Administrative Offences, and an administrative fine of KZT 117,960 was imposed.
This is evidenced by a screenshot from the Public Sector of Administrative Proceedings of the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
The violations concerning non-payment of wages and penalties for delayed payment of wages were remedied by AK LLP, and the administrative fine was paid, as evidenced by payment orders issued by Kaspi Bank JSC.
Thus, all allegations set out in the statement of claim by N S.A. are inaccurate, and she is abusing her rights, which is impermissible pursuant to Article 46 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Objections to the Court Ruling of 24 February 2026 Approving the Mediation Agreement
With regard to the ruling of the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty dated 24 February 2026 approving the agreement on settlement of the dispute (conflict) through mediation in civil case No. 7514-25-00-2/52977 upon the claim of S D.V. against AK Limited Liability Partnership, we categorically object to its admission to the materials of the present civil case.
The legal system of Kazakhstan belongs to the Romano-Germanic (continental) legal system, and judicial precedents do not have binding force when cases are considered by courts.
Moreover, pursuant to Article 76 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the circumstances established by a judgment or court ruling in the adjudication of other civil cases involving the same persons are binding upon the court.
In the present case, the Plaintiff submits a court ruling rather than a judgment or court order in a dispute between S D.V. and AK LLP, which cannot be accepted by the court as a basis for exempting the Plaintiff from the burden of proof.
Pursuant to Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code, upon the application of the party in whose favour the judgment has been rendered, the court awards against the other party the actual expenses incurred for the services of a representative (or representatives) who participated in the proceedings and was not in an employment relationship with that party.
For property claims, the total amount of such expenses may not exceed ten per cent of the satisfied portion of the claim. For non-property claims, expenses are awarded within reasonable limits but may not exceed three hundred monthly calculation indices.
AK LLP retained the services of the Zakon i Pravo Law Firm. The cost of legal services amounts to KZT 700,000, which is subject to recovery from N S.A. This is confirmed by the legal services agreement and the payment order of Kaspi Bank JSC.
Based on the foregoing, the Defendant requested the Court to:
- dismiss the claim of N Sary Anuarkyzy in its entirety;
- recover from N Sary Anuarkyzy in favour of AK Limited Liability Partnership representative expenses in the amount of KZT 700,000.
COURT DECISION
On 15 May 2026, the Bostandyk District Court of Almaty considered, in an open court hearing, civil case No. 7514-26-00-2/9631.
Claim No. 1
Pursuant to Part 1 of Article 10 of the Labour Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the “Labour Code”), employment relations, as well as other relations directly connected with employment, are regulated by an employment agreement, an employer’s act, an agreement and a collective agreement.
The parties do not dispute the existence of the employment relationship. The mandatory pre-trial dispute resolution procedure was complied with.
In support of the claim, the Plaintiff referred to the existence of an order dated 27 March 2025 amending the staffing table, pursuant to which the position of Chief Accountant was removed.
In the statement of claim, the Plaintiff alleges that the order dated 27 March 2025 resulted in an actual staff reduction and her dismissal.
However, these allegations are refuted by the case materials.
The Court established that the order dated 27 March 2025 was cancelled the following day, as confirmed by the order dated 28 March 2025.
Under the order dated 28 March 2025, the previous staffing structure remained unchanged, including the position of Chief Accountant.
The civil case materials contain no evidence confirming the implementation of the order dated 27 March 2025, including delivery of notices or issuance of dismissal orders on the grounds of staff reduction.
The Plaintiff’s allegations concerning an actual staff reduction and the involuntary nature of her dismissal are not supported by the case materials, since there is no order terminating the Plaintiff’s employment agreement on the grounds of staff reduction.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff does not dispute the authenticity of the act dated 30 April 2025 or the order dated 2 May 2025 dismissing her due to her absence from work for more than one month.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff was dismissed due to her absence from work for more than one month, rather than on the grounds of staff reduction.
Pursuant to subparagraph 2) of paragraph 1 of Article 131 of the Labour Code, an employer shall make a compensation payment in connection with loss of employment in the amount of one average monthly salary where an employment agreement is terminated at the employer’s initiative due to reduction in the number or staff of employees.
Since the Plaintiff failed to prove that an employer’s act terminating her employment on the grounds of staff reduction had been issued, the Court finds no grounds for awarding compensation payments.
Claim No. 2
The Plaintiff sought recovery from the Defendant of KZT 1,000,000 as compensation for moral damages.
Pursuant to Article 951 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Special Part), moral damage means violation, diminution or deprivation of personal non-property benefits and rights of individuals, including moral or physical suffering (humiliation, irritation, depression, anger, shame, despair, physical pain, sense of inferiority, discomfort, etc.) experienced or endured by the victim as a result of an offence committed against them.
Moral damage shall be compensated by the person who caused it where such person is at fault, except for the cases provided for in paragraph 3 of this Article.
Moral damage shall be compensated irrespective of the fault of the person who caused it where: the damage was caused to the life or health of a citizen by a source of increased danger; the damage was caused to a citizen as a result of unlawful conviction, unlawful prosecution, unlawful application of detention, house arrest or a written undertaking not to leave the place of residence as a preventive measure, unlawful imposition of administrative detention, unlawful placement in a psychiatric or other medical institution; the damage was caused by dissemination of information discrediting the honour, dignity or business reputation; and in other cases provided for by legislative acts.
Moral suffering as emotional and volitional experiences of a person shall mean feelings of humiliation, irritation, depression, anger, shame, despair, a sense of inferiority, discomfort, etc.
There are no legal grounds for satisfying the claim for recovery of compensation for moral damages from the Defendant.
Claim No. 3
Since there is no dismissal order on the grounds of staff reduction, the employment agreement with the Plaintiff was terminated on the basis provided for by subparagraph 25) of paragraph 1 of Article 52 of the Labour Code, i.e. at the employer’s initiative.
Accordingly, the Court finds no legal grounds to impose an obligation on the Defendant to make amendments to the enbek.kz information system.
Paragraph 11 of Regulatory Resolution No. 5 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 11 July 2003 “On a Court Judgment in Civil Cases” provides that a judgment may not be based on assumptions concerning the circumstances of the case.
The totality of the above circumstances and the examination of the evidence reviewed at the court hearing demonstrate that there are no grounds for granting the claim in full.
Pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter – the “Civil Procedure Code”), the party in whose favour the judgment has been rendered shall be awarded all court costs incurred in the case from the other party.
Pursuant to Article 113 of the Civil Procedure Code, upon the application of the party in whose favour the judgment has been rendered, the court awards against the other party the actual expenses incurred for the services of a representative (or representatives) who participated in the proceedings and was not in an employment relationship with that party.
For property claims, the total amount of such expenses may not exceed ten per cent of the satisfied portion of the claim.
For non-property claims, expenses are awarded within reasonable limits but may not exceed three hundred monthly calculation indices.
The Defendant claimed representative expenses in the amount of KZT 700,000, which is confirmed by the documents submitted to the Court.
Taking into account the nature and scope of the legal assistance provided, as well as the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the Court considers it possible to recover from the Plaintiff, in favour of the Defendant, representative expenses in the amount of KZT 350,000.
Guided by Articles 223–226 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Court
RULED:
To dismiss the claim of N S.A. against AK Limited Liability Partnership for recovery of compensation payments and compensation for moral damages and for imposition of an obligation.
To recover from N S.A. in favour of AK Limited Liability Partnership representative expenses in the amount of KZT 350,000 (three hundred fifty thousand).
Resolve the conflicting dismissal groundsClarify the mismatched claim numbering
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
