Nuredeen

Decisionofthe DisputeResolutionChamber passedon8November2023 regardinganemployment-relateddispute BY: IñigoRIESTRA(Mexico) CLAIMANT: IbrahimNuredeen,Ghana RepresentedbyMIGMakInternationalGroup RESPONDENT: RealKashmirFC,India I.Factsofthecase 1.On4August2022,theplayerIbrahimNuredeenandRealKashmirFCconcludedanemploymentcontractvalidfor8months. 2.Accordingly,scheduleItothecontractstipulatedthefollowing: “1.1.ClubshallpaytheplayeramonthlyremunerationofINR2,52,000/-(INDIANRUPEESTWOLAKHFIFTYTWOTHOUSANDONLY),foramaximumperiodof8monthsstartingfromthefirstdayofPre-SeasonTrainingtothelastmatchoftheclubintheseason2022/2023whichshallbepayable(onorbeforethe10th(tenth))dayofthesubsequentmonthafterthemonthforwhichthepaymentisbeingmade.” 3.Thecontractstipulatedthefollowingastothepayabletaxes: “6.Taxes,PaymentandDocumentation: 6.1.ThetotalCompensationpayabletothePlayerunderthisAgreementisinclusiveofwithholdingtaxoranyotherstatutorydeductionbutexclusiveofotherapplicableindirecttaxes(includingGoodsandServicesTaxorGST)anddutiesinIndic.Forclarification,theCompensationshallbe'grossofwithholdingtax'i.e.theClubshalldeducttheappropriatewithholdingtaxandmakethenetpaymenttothePlayerandissueacertificateforthedeductionofsuchtaxtothePlayerassoonaspracticable” II.ProceedingsbeforeFIFA 4.On14August2023,theplayerlodgedaclaimbeforetheFIFAFootballTribunalforoutstandingremunerationandrequestedthepaymentofthefollowingamounts,plusinterestasfromtheduedates(i.e.the10thdayofthefollowingmonth): -INR252,000forthesalaryofJanuary2023; -INR252,000forthesalaryofFebruary2023; -INR252,000forthesalaryofMarch2023. 5.Initsreply,theclubexplainedthattheplayerreceivedhissalaryofJanuary2023andprovidedadocumentinsupportofitsevidence. 6.Inaddition,theclubarguedthatthesalaryneedstoconsideraTDS(TaxDeductedatSource). 7.Theclubarguedthattheseasonendedon12March2023,andthereforetheplayerisentitledtoINR264,418,asitalsoconsideredthattheplayerreceivedanadvanceofINR15,000. 8.Insupportofitsallegations,theclubprovidedadocumentreflectingthetransactionsfromanaccountat“AxisBank”from8December2022until31March2023. 9.Theplayerdisputedtheclub'sresponsetotheclaim,allegingthattheclubwaslateinpayingsalariesandbonuses,andthatthepaymentstheclubprovidedwerenotforthecorrectmonths. 10.Theplayeralsoarguedthattheircontractwasformonthlywages,notdaily,andthathedeservedtobepaidfortheentiremonthofMarch,eventhoughtheyonlyworkedfor12days. 11.Furthermore,theClaimantarguedthatheisnolongerlivinginIndiaandthatthereforeheshouldreceivehisremunerationinGhana. 12.Initsduplica,theRespondentinsistedinitspreviousarguments. 13.TheclubprovidedascreenshotallegedlyreflectingtransactionsatAxisBank. 14.Theclubprovidedthefollowingcharttosummarizetheplayer’sentitlements: 15.TheclubprovidedcopyofanAirticketindicatingaflightfromtheplayertoGhana(viaEthiopia)on13March2023. III.ConsiderationsoftheDisputeResolutionChamber a.Competenceandapplicablelegalframework 1.Firstofall,theSingleJudgeoftheDisputeResolutionChamber(hereinafteralsoreferredtoasSingleJudgeorJudge)analysedwhetheritwascompetenttodealwiththecaseathand.Inthisrespect,ittooknotethatthepresentmatterwaspresentedtoFIFAon14August2023andsubmittedfordecisionon8November2023.Takingintoaccountthewordingofart.34oftheMay2023editionoftheProceduralRulesGoverningtheFootballTribunal(hereinafter:theProceduralRules),theaforementionededitionoftheProceduralRulesisapplicabletothematterathand. 2.Subsequently,theSingleJudgereferredtoart.2par.1oftheProceduralRulesandobservedthatinaccordancewithart.23par.1incombinationwithart.22lit.b)oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023edition),theDisputeResolutionChamberiscompetenttodealwiththematteratstake,whichconcernsanemployment-relateddisputewithaninternationaldimensionbetweenaGhanaianplayerandanIndianclub. 3.Subsequently,theSingleJudgeanalysedwhichregulationsshouldbeapplicableastothesubstanceofthematter.Inthisrespect,itconfirmedthat,inaccordancewithart.26par.1and2oftheRegulationsontheStatusandTransferofPlayers(May2023edition),andconsideringthatthepresentclaimwaslodgedon14August2023,theMay2023editionofsaidregulations(hereinafter:theRegulations)isapplicabletothematterathandastothesubstance. b.Burdenofproof 4.TheSingleJudgerecalledthebasicprincipleofburdenofproof,asstipulatedinart.13par.5oftheProceduralRules,accordingtowhichapartyclaimingarightonthebasisofanallegedfactshallcarrytherespectiveburdenofproof.Likewise,theSingleJudgestressedthewordingofart.13par.4oftheProceduralRules,pursuanttowhichitmayconsiderevidencenotfiledbytheparties,includingwithoutlimitationtheevidencegeneratedbyorwithintheTransferMatchingSystem(TMS). c.Meritsofthedispute 5.Itscompetenceandtheapplicableregulationshavingbeenestablished,theSingleJudgeenteredintothemeritsofthedispute.Inthisrespect,theSingleJudgestartedbyacknowledgingalltheabove-mentionedfactsaswellastheargumentsandthe documentationonfile.However,theSingleJudgeemphasisedthatinthefollowingconsiderationsitwillreferonlytothefacts,argumentsanddocumentaryevidence,whichitconsideredpertine