What labour courts are
Labour courts (المحاكم العمالية) are the judicial body that hears claims arising from the employment relationship in Saudi Arabia, and they sit under the Ministry of Justice. The Saudi Labor Law (نظام العمل) names them in Articles 234 and 235, and they are the forum in which a labour dispute ends when it has not been resolved at an earlier stage.
Around that definition sit five questions that a worker or an employer meets in practice: which bodies the labour courts replaced, what has to happen before a claim reaches them, which matters reach them by a different route and on a different clock, which matters do not go to them at all, and for how long a claim remains admissible before them. The sections below take those questions in turn.
What the labour courts replaced
Chapter Fourteen of the Labor Law was devoted to the labour dispute settlement bodies (هيئات تسوية الخلافات العمالية): the primary body (الهيئة الابتدائية) and the higher body (الهيئة العليا), their composition, their jurisdiction and their procedure. Articles 210 to 228 of the Labor Law, the whole of that chapter, are marked as repealed (ملغاة) in the consolidated text in force, repealed by Royal Decree M/1 dated 22/1/1435H. That is nineteen consecutive articles.
The effect is practical rather than historical. A guide or a form that directs a reader to a labour dispute settlement body sends that reader to a body that no longer exists. Jurisdiction now lies with the labour courts. Article 222 of the Labor Law is among the nineteen repealed articles, and a source may still cite it as the article that sets the limitation period for a labour claim. It does not set it. The limitation period is in Article 234 of the Labor Law, set out further down.
Before the labour courts: amicable settlement at the Ministry
A worker’s claim for entitlements does not begin at the labour courts. Its first stage is amicable settlement (التسوية الودية) at the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development. According to the Ministry’s service page, the statutory duration of that stage is 21 working days from the filing of the request, and where no settlement is reached the matter is referred to the labour court. The same page states that the general amicable settlement service does not cover domestic labour, which follows a separate track at the Ministry that also ends in referral to the labour courts. How the settlement stage runs, and how it leads into the court stage, is set out in our guide to amicable settlement and the labour court.
The Ministry set out the division of work between the two bodies in its announcement of 3 October 2024: the Ministry handles reconciliation and amicable settlement, and where an amicable agreement cannot be reached, cases are referred to the labour courts under the Ministry of Justice for adjudication.
Two routes into the labour courts, each with a deadline
This is where the matter can become confused. The labour courts are not reached through a single door:
- A worker’s claim to a right provided for in the Labor Law or arising from the employment contract. It reaches the court through amicable settlement, when no settlement is reached there.
- An objection to a decision imposing a disciplinary penalty. It is provided for in Article 72 of the Labor Law. The worker first files a written grievance with the competent body at the employer within thirty days, excluding official holidays, from notification of the decision, and the employer then has fifteen days from its submission to decide it in writing. If the grievance is rejected, or is not decided in writing within those fifteen days, the worker may object before the labour courts within thirty days, excluding official holidays, from the date of rejection or the expiry of the period set for deciding the grievance, whichever is earlier.
The words whichever is earlier are part of the text of Article 72 of the Labor Law. Where the employer does not reply, the thirty days for the objection run from the expiry of the employer’s fifteen days, not from the day on which a late reply arrives, and a late letter does not open the period again. The three periods in Article 72 of the Labor Law belong to different parties and start from different events, and how they fit together after a penalty has been imposed is worked through under suspension. Royal Decree M/44, in force since 19 February 2025, amended Article 72 of the Labor Law, and the route set out above is that article as amended.
Labour courts and casual, seasonal and temporary contracts
The jurisdiction of the labour courts also extends to forms of contract that a reader may assume fall outside labour adjudication. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Implementing Regulation (اللائحة التنفيذية) provides that the labour courts have jurisdiction over disputes that may arise between the parties to a casual, a seasonal or a temporary employment contract.
The administrative fine and the labour courts: a different route
A fine that the Ministry imposes on an establishment in breach belongs to neither of the two routes above, and confusing it with a worker’s claim is an error that can appear in labour content. Two texts govern it:
- Paragraph 1 of Article 230 of the Labor Law. It allows the Ministry to impose the fine or the closure up to half of the maximum, and provides that the decision may be challenged by a grievance (تظلم) before the competent administrative court.
- Clause 3 of Ministerial Decision No. 112377. It is the decision dated 21/8/1447H that issued the Schedule of Violations and Penalties, and it allows the employer to object to the administrative decision before the competent body at the Ministry within 60 days of notification, providing that the objection does not suspend enforcement of the fine.
Both texts are in force, and neither says that one comes before the other, so the definition of labour courts sets no order between them. In the sources we reviewed, we found nothing that settles whether the two are sequential or alternative. What is established is the difference in forum: the body that hears a challenge to an administrative fine is not the body that hears a worker’s claim. Royal Decree M/44 changed Article 230 of the Labor Law only in its paragraph 5, on settling a violation, so paragraph 1 stands as it did before that decree. How the amounts, size columns and multipliers of the Schedule work is set out under Schedule of Violations and Penalties.
The word grievance (التظلم) appears on both routes with two different meanings. In Article 72 of the Labor Law it is the worker’s internal grievance to the employer. In Article 230 of the Labor Law it is the employer’s challenge to a Ministry decision before the administrative court. The word is the same, but the two processes differ in the party and in the forum, and the periods that Article 72 of the Labor Law fixes do not carry over to the grievance in Article 230 of the Labor Law, in which we found no period stated.
When a claim before the labour courts is admissible: Article 234 of the Labor Law
Article 234 of the Labor Law provides that no claim relating to a right provided for in the Labor Law, or arising from the employment contract, is admissible before the labour courts after twelve months have passed from the date the employment relationship ended, unless the claimant presents an excuse that the court accepts, or the defendant acknowledges the right. The same article adds that labour cases are heard as a matter of urgency. Article 234 of the Labor Law was added by Royal Decree M/14 dated 22/2/1440H, and Royal Decree M/44 did not amend it.
Three points in Article 234 of the Labor Law can be misstated:
- The starting date. It is the end of the employment relationship, not the date on which the right arose.
- The two exceptions. They are written into the text, so the statement that everything is lost after a year is wrong.
- The nature of the rule. It is a rule on admissibility. The text says that no claim is admissible, which is not the same as a ruling on the right itself.
Labour courts while a case is pending: Article 235 of the Labor Law
Article 235 of the Labor Law, also added by Royal Decree M/14, provides that while a case is being heard, the employer may not change the terms of employment that were in force before the case was brought in a way that harms the worker’s position in the case. Article 235 of the Labor Law therefore restricts what the employer does during the proceedings, and the comparison it calls for is between the terms of employment before the case was brought and the terms afterwards.
The filing channel for the labour courts
In the sources we reviewed, we found no official page naming the electronic channel through which a claim is filed before the court, so no platform is named for that stage. The channel for the earlier stage, amicable settlement, is published by the Ministry: the electronic labour services portal (بوابة الخدمات الإلكترونية للعمل).
This is an explanation of the concept and of the statutory provisions cited, not legal advice.
A standalone Saudi HR system
One employee file holding the contract, the documents and their expiry dates, the attendance record, leave, salary and end-of-service entitlements. End-of-service, overtime and leave-balance calculations are built into the system.
A standalone system on its own subscription. The connection to Qoyod Accounting is now available.