Wage deductions under the Saudi Labor Law are not a single rule. Article 91 governs what is deducted against damage the worker caused, Article 92 lists the cases where a deduction is permitted without the worker’s written consent, and Article 93 sets an aggregate ceiling on everything deducted.
This guide presents Articles 91, 92, 93 and 94 as written, then Articles 95, 96 and 97, three supporting rules on assessing wages and on a worker’s detention. The right of set-off on final settlement, in Article 88, is covered in our guide to wage payment dates and final settlement, and the fine as a disciplinary penalty and its caps in Article 70 is covered in our guide to disciplinary penalties.
1. Three rules, not one
The wages chapter contains three rules that differ in structure, and should not be read as a single rule:
- Article 91: deduction against damage the worker caused. Its own conditions, its own cap, its own procedure.
- Article 92: the cases where a deduction is permitted without the worker’s written consent, each with whatever ceiling the text states for it.
- Article 93: the aggregate ceiling on the total deducted.
Article 91 governs the cause of the deduction, Article 92 governs whether the worker’s consent is needed, and Article 93 governs the total. All three are read together against a single wage.
2. Article 91: deduction for loss, damage or destruction
Article 91 provides that where a worker causes the loss, damage or destruction of materials, machines or products owned by the employer or in their custody, and this arose from the worker’s fault or their breach of the employer’s instructions, and was not the result of a third party’s fault or of force majeure, the employer may deduct from the worker’s wage the amount needed for repair or restoration:
“provided the amount deducted for this purpose does not exceed five days’ wage per month”
All three conditions must be met together: the loss, damage or destruction occurred to property owned by the employer or in their custody; it arose from the worker’s fault or breach of instructions; and neither a third party’s fault nor force majeure was the cause.
The employer may file a grievance (تظلم) seeking more than this if the worker has other property that can be drawn on. The worker may challenge the attribution of the incident to them, or the employer’s assessment of the compensation, before the labor court.
Where the court rules the employer had no right to the deduction, or awards less than what was deducted, the employer must return what was wrongly deducted within seven days of the judgment.
The grievance window for both parties is 15 working days, after which the right to file lapses. It runs, for the employer, from the date the incident was discovered; for the worker, from the date the employer notified them of it.
3. Article 91’s cap is not Article 70’s cap
Two rules in the Labor Law each mention “five days,” and they are two different rules. The cap in Article 70 applies to a fine as a disciplinary penalty, covered in our guide to disciplinary penalties. The cap in Article 91 applies to recovering material damage.
A page that states “five days” once for both has merged two ceilings that sit under Article 93 separately, each on its own. How the two caps are applied together within a single month is not something this guide has found in the text, and that specific case is a matter for the statutory text and the competent authority.
4. Article 92: cases that need no written consent
Article 92 opens with its rule:
“No amount may be deducted from a worker’s wages against private claims without their written consent, except in the following cases”
The cases stated in the text:
The text sets an order of satisfaction: maintenance debt first, then the debt for food, clothing and housing, before other debts.
Reading this list as closed is correct in its own place: it is closed as the list of deductions permitted without consent. What falls outside it does not thereby become prohibited; it becomes conditional on the worker’s written consent, which is exactly what the article’s own opening clause states.
5. Article 93: the aggregate ceiling and its three limbs
Article 93 provides:
“In no case may the proportion of amounts deducted exceed half the wage due to the worker, unless the labor court is satisfied that a deduction above that proportion is possible, or is satisfied that the worker needs more than half their wage. In that latter case the worker is not given more than three-quarters of their wage, in any event.”
The rule has three limbs, and the phrasing “deductions cannot exceed 50%” states only one of them:
- Default: deducted amounts may not exceed half the wage due.
- First exception: unless the labor court is satisfied that a deduction above that proportion is possible.
- Second exception: or is satisfied that the worker needs more than half their wage, in which case “the worker is not given more than three-quarters of their wage, in any event.”
Going above half is conditional on what is established before the court, and the outer limit in the relief case is three-quarters. The three limbs are stated as they appear in the text, not compressed into one percentage.
It is worth noting that “the wage due” appears unqualified in the text, and is therefore the actual wage under Article 2’s definition, not the basic wage. Computing the 50% ceiling on the basic wage reads a lower ceiling than the text actually sets.
6. Article 94: the consequence of an unauthorized deduction or a late payment
Article 94 addresses two cases in its first paragraph:
- An amount is deducted from a worker’s wage for a reason not provided for in the Law, without their written consent.
- Or the employer is late in paying the worker’s wage past its statutory due date without legitimate justification.
In both cases, the worker, their representative, or the director of the competent labor office may apply to the labor court for an order requiring the employer to return what was wrongly deducted or to pay the wage due.
The second paragraph provides that once the court establishes the deduction or the unjustified delay, it may impose on the employer a fine not exceeding double the amount deducted or double the value of the delayed wage.
The fine is discretionary in the text’s own wording, and it is the court that imposes it. It is not an automatic consequence, and not an administrative penalty.
7. Article 95: when neither the contract nor the regulation states the wage
Article 95 provides that where neither the contract nor the work-organization regulation states the wage, the wage assessed for the same kind of work in the establishment is adopted, if one exists; failing that, the custom of the trade in the locality where the work is performed; failing that, the labor court assesses it according to the requirements of justice. The same sequence applies in determining the kind and extent of service owed by the worker.
This article’s place in the wages chapter is practically useful: it addresses the absence of a stated wage, not its amount. What the work-organization regulation requires, and what the Law refers to it, is a separate subject.
8. Article 96: piece-rate or production wages, and commission wages
Article 96 sets two rules for assessing variable wages:
- Where the wage is set by piece or by production, computing any of the worker’s statutory entitlements uses the average received over the actual working days in the last year of service.
- Where the entire wage consists of commissions or percentages of sales or similar amounts that can rise or fall, the average daily wage is what the worker received over actual working days, divided by those days.
9. Article 97: a worker detained for a work-related matter
Article 97 provides that where a worker is detained by the competent authorities in a matter connected with the work or arising because of it, the employer must continue paying 50% of the wage until the case is decided, provided the detention does not exceed 180 days. Beyond that, the employer owes nothing for the excess period.
Where the worker is acquitted, or the investigation is closed for want of proof, the employer must return what was previously deducted. Where the worker is convicted, what was paid to them is not recovered, unless the judgment states otherwise.
10. What this guide does not cover
- How the Article 70 cap and the Article 91 cap are applied together within a single month.
- A specific ceiling for cases 2, 3 and 4 of Article 92. The text states none for them.
- The labor court’s criteria for establishing that a deduction above half is possible, or that the worker needs more than half their wage.
- What counts as “legitimate justification” for a late wage payment under Article 94, and the criteria for assessing the fine below its ceiling.
- The classification of a work-related debt and the limits of set-off under Article 88.
- Deduction rules for the wages of domestic workers and those in a similar category. Article 7 excludes them from the Labor Law, and they are covered by a separate regulation this guide has not examined.
Each of these is a matter for the statutory text and the competent authority.
11. What your system needs to record
The ceilings in this chapter are measured against the wage and against the month, so what is worth keeping in the record is what makes that measurement possible:
- The reason for every deduction, attributed to its article: damage under Article 91, a case under Article 92, or a fine under Article 70.
- The worker’s social insurance share recorded separately; its accounting entry is covered in our guide to GOSI in the payroll run.
- The wage due that the Article 93 ceiling is measured against, not the basic wage.
- The worker’s written consent wherever a deduction falls outside the Article 92 cases.
- The total deducted in the month from every category, as a single figure.
- The date the damage was discovered and the date the worker was notified of it, since the grievance period for each party runs from one of these.
- Judicial judgments executed against the wage, and the deduction percentage stated in them.
- Days of detention and what was paid during them, since the fate of those amounts is conditional on how the case is decided.
12. Checklist
- Does your system attribute every deduction to the article it is based on?
- Is the 50% ceiling in Article 93 measured against the wage due, or against the basic wage?
- Is what is deducted for damage within the five-day-wage-per-month limit?
- Is every deduction outside the Article 92 cases backed by the worker’s written consent?
- Does a deduction executing a judicial judgment exceed a quarter of the monthly wage due, without the judgment itself authorizing that?
- Are the dates of discovery and notification kept on record, or estimated only after a dispute arises?
- Is the total deducted in the month, across every category, totalled before the payroll run is approved, or is each item looked at alone?
13. Why this turns into a problem
Three ceilings apply to one wage in one month, and each is measured on its own scale: the damage ceiling in Article 91 against five days’ wage per month, the ceiling for specific cases in Article 92, and the aggregate ceiling in Article 93, whose default is half the wage due. Whoever monitors a single line sees compliance in that line, and misses the total.
Added to that, what is deducted at an establishment does not all come from one category: some is recorded as a disciplinary fine, some as loan recovery, some as execution of a judicial judgment. Unless these categories are totalled into a single figure before the payroll run is approved, the Article 93 ceiling stays unmeasured.
This is where keeping every employee’s facts in one file earns its value. That is what Qoyod HR provides: a single employee file holding the contract, documents and their expiry dates with alerts ahead of them, an attendance record for every employee, plus their leave, salary and end-of-service dues. End-of-service, overtime and leave-balance calculations are built into the system. It is an independent HR system with its own subscription, and the connection to Qoyod Accounting is available now.
An independent Saudi HR system
A single employee file holding the contract, documents and their expiry dates, plus attendance, leave, salary and end-of-service dues. End-of-service, overtime and leave-balance calculations are built into the system.
For more guides and templates, browse the HR resource center.
Frequently Asked Questions
What percentage of wage deduction is permitted under the Saudi Labor Law?
Article 93 provides that in no case may the proportion of amounts deducted exceed half the wage due to the worker, unless the labor court is satisfied that a deduction above that proportion is possible, or is satisfied that the worker needs more than half their wage. In that latter case the worker is not given more than three-quarters of their wage, in any event. The rule has three limbs, not one percentage, and “the wage due” is the actual wage under Article 2’s definition, not the basic wage.
When may a deduction be made from a wage without the worker’s consent?
Article 92 opens by stating that no amount may be deducted from a worker’s wages against private claims without their written consent, except in the cases it lists: recovery of loans from the employer up to 10% of the wage, social insurance contributions and similar statutory contributions, contributions to the savings and loans fund, instalments on an employer housing scheme intended to transfer ownership to workers or any other benefit, fines and amounts deducted for damage the worker caused, and any debt satisfied in execution of a judicial judgment up to a quarter of the wage due monthly unless the judgment states otherwise. Anything outside these cases requires the worker’s written consent.
How much is deducted for damage a worker caused?
Article 91 allows the employer to deduct the amount needed for repair or restoration where loss, damage or destruction occurs to materials, machines or products owned by the employer or in their custody, arising from the worker’s fault or breach of instructions, and not from a third party’s fault or force majeure, provided the amount deducted for this purpose does not exceed five days’ wage per month. The employer may file a grievance seeking more if the worker has other property to satisfy from.
Is the five-day cap in Article 91 the same as the disciplinary fine cap?
No. Article 70’s cap applies to a fine as a disciplinary penalty, and Article 91’s cap applies to recovering material damage. These are two different rules, each sitting under the Article 93 aggregate ceiling separately. How the two caps apply together within a single month is not addressed in the text this guide reviewed, and that specific case is a matter for the statutory text and the competent authority.
What happens if a deduction has no legal basis, or a wage payment is late?
Article 94 provides that where an amount is deducted from a worker’s wage for a reason not provided for in the Law without their written consent, or the employer is late in paying the wage past its statutory due date without legitimate justification, the worker, their representative or the director of the competent labor office may apply to the labor court for an order requiring the employer to return what was wrongly deducted or pay the wage due. Where the court establishes this, it may impose a fine not exceeding double the amount deducted or double the value of the delayed wage. The fine is discretionary and is imposed by the court.
Does the wage continue if a worker is detained in a work-related case?
Article 97 provides that where a worker is detained by the competent authorities in a matter connected with the work or arising because of it, the employer must continue paying 50% of the wage until the case is decided, provided the detention does not exceed 180 days; beyond that the employer owes nothing for the excess period. On acquittal, or where the investigation is closed for want of proof, the employer must return what was previously deducted. On conviction, what was paid is not recovered, unless the judgment states otherwise.
Regulatory References
This guide is based on the Saudi Labor Law as published by the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development: Article 91 (deduction for loss, damage and destruction, the grievance and its window), Article 92 (cases of deduction without written consent, their ceilings and order of satisfaction), Article 93 (the aggregate ceiling and its three limbs), Article 94 (unauthorized deductions and late payment and their consequences), Article 95 (assessing the wage where none is stated), Article 96 (piece-rate, production and commission wages), Article 97 (a worker’s detention), Article 2 (the definitions of basic wage and actual wage), and Article 7 (those excluded from the Law’s provisions).
On the effect of the amendments in Royal Decree M/44 of 1446 AH, in force since February 19, 2025: Articles 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97 were not touched by this decree’s amendments. The definitions of basic wage and actual wage in Article 2 appear identical, before and after the amendment, in the ministry’s own published summary of the amendments.
This guide is regulatory explanation, not legal advice. For an active dispute or a specific case, the statutory text and the competent authority remain the reference.
