The First Instance Court of General Jurisdiction of Syunik Region recently examined the claim filed by former employee of ZCMC, V. B., against “Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine” CJSC (ZCMC), seeking to invalidate the Order No. 281-K dated 07.02.2025 issued by the Company’s General Director Roman Khudoliy, to reinstate him in his position, and to recover the average salary for the entire period of forced idleness. The Court partially upheld the claim – declaring the order on termination of the employment contract invalid, but refusing to reinstate the employee in his previous position, instead awarding compensation. This was reported by Iravaban.net based on data from the Datalex Judicial Information System.

Factual Background of the Case

According to the case materials, V. B. was employed at ZCMC on 18.12.2013 under Employment Contract No. 6049. During the course of employment, several amendments were made to the contract, and prior to his dismissal, V. B. held the position of Shift Valve Operator of 4th Grade, Equipment Maintenance of Mechanical Management, Ore Crushing and Conveying Plant.

On 07.02.2025, ZCMC General Director Roman Khudoliy signed an order to terminate V. B.’s employment contract, referring to Article 113(1)(6) of the Labour Code of the Republic of Armenia (loss of trust). The order stated that V. B. had organized and participated in unlawful actions from 31 January to 4 February 2025, which obstructed the company’s work process, including setting up barriers and restricting employees’ access, as a result of which the company suffered material damage.

The respondent argued that the claimant was duly notified and required to provide a written explanation regarding the disciplinary violation within one hour, but V. B. failed to submit any explanation.

The claimant, however, insisted that he never received such notification and was on leave from 15 January to 10 March 2025. Moreover, from 5 to 8 February, i.e., at the time the termination order was signed, he was held in detention (places of arrest).

Court’s Analysis and Findings

In considering the case, the Court first examined the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia and the Labour Code of the Republic of Armenia. Specifically, it noted that under Article 214(2) of the CPC, a court shall in all cases declare an individual act invalid if the employer violated the procedure established by law, another normative act, or an internal legal act of the employer for amending, terminating an employment contract, or imposing disciplinary liability on an employee.

The Court referred to Article 226 of the Labour Code, which provides that prior to applying a disciplinary sanction, the employer must request a written explanation from the employee within a reasonable time. According to the Court, this norm is designed to protect the employee’s right against possible adverse consequences.

After reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the employer failed to prove that it had requested a written explanation from the employee before applying the disciplinary measure. Although the respondent submitted the text of a notification, it did not present any evidence that the notification was actually sent to the claimant.

Additionally, the Court took into account that at the time of termination, the claimant was in detention (places of arrest), which was confirmed by a letter from the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Armenia.

Based on these circumstances, the Court held that the order terminating the employment contract must be declared invalid, as the legally prescribed procedure for requesting an employee’s written explanation had been violated.

On Reinstatement

Regarding the issue of reinstatement, the Court considered Article 265(2) of the Labour Code, which states that if it is impossible to restore the previous employment relationship between the employer and the employee, the court may refrain from reinstating the employee and instead award appropriate compensation.

The Court reasoned that this norm aims to balance the rights and interests of both parties and emphasized that the impossibility of reinstatement must be assessed based on the specific factual circumstances of each case.

Referring to the precedential practice of the Cassation Court of the Republic of Armenia, the Court noted that a tense relationship between employer and employee can constitute grounds for recognizing the restoration of employment relations as impossible.

After examining the evidence, the Court found that there was indeed tension between the parties. In particular, it took into account publications on ZCMC’s official Facebook page, where the company described the employees’ actions as “illegal activities and production sabotage.” The Court also noted that the claimant’s posts on social media indicated strained relations between the parties.

Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the degree of tension between the parties made it impossible for the claimant to normally fulfill his job duties, and therefore decided not to reinstate him.

Determination of Compensation

In determining the amount of compensation, the Court was guided by Article 265(2) of the Labour Code, which provides for compensation not less than the average monthly salary and not exceeding twelve times the average salary. The Court noted that the legislator did not specify concrete criteria for determining the amount, leaving it to the court’s discretion.

The Court held that in setting the amount, factors such as the employee’s length of service and the existence or absence of prior disciplinary penalties should be considered. Since the claimant had worked for the company for more than 10 years, and there was no evidence of prior disciplinary sanctions, the Court determined ten times the average salary as fair compensation.

Court Decision

Based on the above, the Court decided to partially satisfy the claim and ruled to:

• Declare Order No. 281-K dated 07.02.2025 of “Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine” CJSC on termination of the employment contract invalid.
• Recover from ZCMC in favor of V. B. compensation for the entire period of forced idleness in the amount of the average salary, and additional compensation equal to ten times the average salary in lieu of reinstatement.
• Consider V. B.’s employment contract terminated as of the date the judgment enters into legal force.
• Recover from ZCMC in favor of the Republic of Armenia a state duty of 20,000 AMD.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for the practical application of labor law, as it addresses several key issues.

First, it underscores the importance of compliance with the legally established procedure for requesting a written explanation from the employee before dismissal. The Court clearly stated that this requirement is mandatory, and failure to comply leads to the invalidity of the individual legal act.

Second, the Court applied Article 265(2) of the Labour Code regarding the non-reinstatement of the employee, considering the existence of tense relations as a sufficient ground for determining the impossibility of restoring employment relations.

Third, the Court outlined the criteria for determining compensation, emphasizing the employee’s length of service and the absence of prior disciplinary sanctions.

Overall, the case demonstrates that even where grounds for dismissal exist, the employer must strictly adhere to the legally established procedures. Non-compliance may result in the court declaring the dismissal order invalid. At the same time, the Court retains discretionary authority to assess whether reinstatement is feasible and, if not, to award appropriate compensation.

Procedure for Appeal

The judgment enters into legal force one month after its publication and may be appealed to the Civil Court of Appeal of the Republic of Armenia within one month of publication. If not executed voluntarily, the judgment shall be enforced by the Compulsory Enforcement Service at the debtor’s expense,  Iravaban.net reports.

Main photo: General Director of “Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine” CJSC Roman Khudoliy and the company logo.