Dismissal Without an Award and Leaving Work Without Notice: Articles 80 and 81

The Saudi Labor Law contains two facing articles that address leaving the relationship outside the usual route: Article 80 allows the employer to rescind the contract without an award, without notice and without compensation in defined cases, and Article 81 allows the worker to leave work without notice while retaining their statutory rights in full in other defined cases.

Article 80 is confined by enumeration: rescission under it is valid only in nine cases, and no analogy is drawn to them. Article 81 enumerates seven cases in which the worker leaves work without notice while retaining their rights. More important still, each case has precise conditions, and the rule falls with the fall of any of them, and these conditions are frequently overlooked when the two articles are cited.

1. The condition that precedes the nine cases

Before any discussion of the cases in Article 80, the text imposes a procedural condition on the employer: to enable the worker to state the reasons for their objection to the rescission.

This condition is part of the article itself, not a discretionary procedure around it. Citing Article 80 without mentioning it presents the article as something other than what it is, even where one of the nine cases is met.

2. The nine cases in Article 80

The employer may not rescind the contract without an award, without notice and without compensation except in the following cases, and with the preceding procedural condition satisfied:

1. Assault by the worker on the employer, the responsible manager, or one of their superiors or subordinates, during work or because of it.
2. Failure to perform the essential obligations arising from the contract, or failure to obey lawful orders, or deliberately failing to observe safety instructions posted in a visible place, despite having been warned in writing.
3. Proven misconduct or the commission of an act offending honour or honesty.
4. Deliberately committing any act or omission intended to inflict material loss on the employer, provided that the employer notifies the competent authorities of the incident within 24 hours of the time they became aware of it.
5. Proof that the worker resorted to forgery to obtain the work.
6. The worker being appointed under probation.
7. Absence without a legitimate reason for more than 30 days in one contract year, or more than 15 consecutive days, provided that the dismissal is preceded by a written warning from the employer after an absence of 20 days in the first case and 10 days in the second.
8. Proof that the worker exploited their job position unlawfully to achieve personal gain.
9. Proof that the worker disclosed the industrial or commercial secrets of the work.

3. The seven cases in Article 81

The worker may leave work without notice, while retaining their statutory rights in full, in any of the following cases:

1. The employer’s failure to fulfil their essential contractual or statutory obligations towards the worker.
2. Proven fraud by the employer or their representative at the time of contracting as to the terms and conditions of the work.
3. Assigning the worker work that differs substantially from the work agreed, without their consent, contrary to what Article 60 provides.
4. Violent assault or conduct offending public morals, by the employer, a member of their family or the responsible manager, on the worker or a member of their family.
5. Treatment marked by cruelty, injustice or insult by the employer or the responsible manager.
6. The existence of a serious hazard in the workplace threatening the worker’s safety or health, provided the employer was aware of it and took nothing indicating its removal.
7. That the employer or their representative drives the worker by their conduct, particularly by unjust treatment or by breaching the terms of the contract, to appear as the party who terminated the contract.

4. The precise conditions whose fall brings the rule down

Enumerating the cases alone is not enough. A number of the cases are subject to additional conditions provided for in the article itself, and overlooking the condition changes the rule:

• Deliberateness is a condition in the fourth case of Article 80, and a condition in the second case only as regards failure to observe safety instructions, not as regards its other limbs.
• A prior written warning is a condition in the second case, and a condition in the seventh case with its own deadlines.
• Posting the safety instructions in a visible place is a condition in the second case. Instructions not posted in that manner fall outside the scope of the text.
• Notification within 24 hours of the time of becoming aware is a condition in the fourth case, and it is counted from awareness of the incident and not from its occurrence.
• “Violent” assault is the description in the text in the fourth case of Article 81, not assault at large.
• The employer’s awareness of the hazard and their taking nothing indicating its removal is a double condition in the sixth case of Article 81.

Warning deadlines in the absence case

The seventh case of Article 80 is the most detailed of them in deadlines, and it has two independent routes:

• Intermittent absence: more than 30 days in the contract year, with the written warning after an absence of 20 days.
• Continuous absence: more than 15 consecutive days, with the written warning after an absence of 10 days.

The warning here is not a step following the dismissal but one preceding it, and it has its own deadline on each route. This makes the date of the warning a fact the record has to carry, not merely the fact that a warning was issued.

5. How the two articles are read together

Article 80 is the employer’s exit from notice and from the award and from compensation together. Article 81 is the worker’s exit from notice with their rights remaining. Both stand in force, and it is sound to cite them together where a clause in a contract calls for this exception.

6. What the text does not address

The two articles enumerate the cases and set their conditions, and do not deal with the following:

• The form of enabling the worker to state their objection: the text imposes the condition and does not detail its form or its duration. The particular case is to be referred to the statutory text and the competent authority.
• The standard for “essential obligations” in the second case of Article 80 and the first case of Article 81. The particular case is to be referred to the statutory text and the competent authority.
• Proving “deliberateness” and what establishes it. The particular case is to be referred to the statutory text and the competent authority.
• The effect of applying Article 81 on the end-of-service award in detail. Article 81 preserves the worker’s statutory rights in full in its cases, and it is one of the exceptions read together with the table in Article 85, alongside the exceptions in Article 87. As for the detail in a particular case, it is referred to the statutory text and the competent authority.

7. What your system should record

• The date of every written warning, its text, and the date it was handed to the worker.
• The days of absence itemised with their dates, not aggregated into a number, because the two routes differ: intermittent within the contract year, or continuous.
• The start of the contract year for each employee, because it is the container for reckoning intermittent absence.
• The fact of enabling the worker to state their objection and its date.
• The date of becoming aware of the incident in the fourth case, because the 24-hour deadline is counted from it.
• The posting of the safety instructions, the place they were posted and the date.

8. A checklist before relying on Article 80

• Is the case one of the nine cases by text, not by analogy to them?
• Was the worker enabled to state the reasons for their objection, and is that documented?
• If the case requires deliberateness, is that in fact what is being relied on?
• If it requires a prior written warning, was one issued? And within its deadline?
• In the absence case: is the route intermittent or continuous? And was the warning issued after 20 days or 10 days accordingly?
• In the case of deliberate material loss: were the competent authorities notified within 24 hours of becoming aware of the incident?
• Were the safety instructions posted in a visible place before the occurrence?

9. Why this turns into a problem

With Articles 80 and 81, establishments do not usually go wrong by relying on a case that is not provided for, but rather by dropping a condition inside a case that is provided for: a dismissal resting on absence without a warning within its deadline, or on safety instructions that were not posted, or without enabling the worker to object.

These conditions are all dated facts: a warning has a date, a posting has a place and a date, awareness of an incident has an hour, and an objection has a date. An establishment that keeps the result without the facts finds itself with nothing to rely on when the question is about the condition rather than about the case.

This is where it pays to have an employee’s facts in a single file. That is what Qoyod HR provides: a single employee file holding the contract, the documents and their expiry dates with an alert before them, an attendance record for each employee, and their leave, salary and end-of-service entitlements. End-of-service, overtime and leave-balance calculations are built into the system. It is a standalone HR system with its own subscription, and the link with Qoyod accounting is available now.

For the notice period, see The notice period and terminating the employment contract. For resignation, see Resignation: Article 79 bis.

To estimate the entitlements where the award is due, the end-of-service award calculator will help you, and for more guides and templates browse the HR Resource Centre.

Frequently asked questions

When is dismissal without an award, without notice and without compensation permitted?

In nine cases which Article 80 enumerates exhaustively, and with a procedural condition that does not fall away: that the employer enable the worker to state the reasons for their objection to the rescission. This condition is part of the article itself, and citing the article without it presents it as something other than what it is.

Is absence alone enough for dismissal under Article 80?

No. The seventh case requires absence without a legitimate reason for more than 30 days in the contract year or more than 15 consecutive days, and it likewise requires that the dismissal be preceded by a written warning after an absence of 20 days in the first case and 10 days in the second.

When may a worker leave work without notice while keeping their rights?

In seven cases which Article 81 enumerates, among them the employer’s failure to fulfil their essential obligations, fraud at the time of contracting, assigning them work that differs substantially from what was agreed without their consent, violent assault, treatment marked by cruelty or injustice or insult, and the existence of a serious hazard the employer is aware of and has taken nothing indicating its removal.

What is the notification deadline in the case of deliberate material loss?

The fourth case of Article 80 requires the employer to notify the competent authorities of the incident within 24 hours of the time they became aware of it. The deadline is counted from the time of becoming aware of the incident and not from the time it occurred.

Are Article 80 and Article 81 contradictory?

No, they face each other. Article 80 is the employer’s exit from notice and from the award and from compensation together, and Article 81 is the worker’s exit from notice while their statutory rights remain in full. Both stand in force.

May analogy be drawn to the cases in the two articles?

The text enumerates the cases by count: nine in Article 80 and seven in Article 81. As for what falls outside that count, it is a matter to be referred to the statutory text and the competent authority.

Statutory references

This guide rests on the Saudi Labor Law: Article 60 (not changing the work substantially), Article 80 (rescission without an award, without notice and without compensation, with its nine cases and its procedural condition), Article 81 (leaving work without notice with rights preserved, with its seven cases), Article 85 (reduction of the end-of-service award on resignation) and Article 87 (the exceptions to the reduction in Article 85).

On the effect of the amendments made by Royal Decree M/44 of 1446 AH, in force since 19 February 2025: the last amendment to Article 80 was by Royal Decree M/46 and M/44 did not touch it, and Articles 81 and 87 were not touched by the M/44 amendments. As for Articles 60 and 85, this guide has not established an explicit amendment status for them, so it is not sound to assert that they were or were not amended, and reference on that point goes to the updated statutory text.

This guide is a regulatory explanation, not legal advice. In an existing dispute or a particular case, the statutory text and the competent authority remain the reference.