Stranded Outside the UAE: Can an Employer Withhold Salary, Refuse Leave, or Terminate Employment Under UAE Labour Law?

Stranded Outside the UAE: Can an Employer Withhold Salary, Refuse Leave, or Terminate Employment Under UAE Labour Law?

A detailed UAE labour law analysis of whether employers may stop salary when employees are stranded outside the UAE, including leave, remote work, sickness, unauthorised absence, dismissal without notice, force majeure, and whether employees can rely on regional security risks as a legal excuse.

Stranded Outside the UAE: What the Law Really Says About Salary, Leave, and Employer Obligations

The current regional situation has revived a practical employment question that many UAE businesses now face in real time: an employee travels abroad, flights are reduced or disrupted, the employee does not return on the agreed date, and the employer asks whether salary must continue. The legal answer under UAE law is not automatic. It depends on the legal basis of the employee’s absence, whether the employee is still working, whether leave has been approved or extended, whether the employee can show a recognised excuse, and whether the period of absence has crossed the threshold for dismissal without notice. The wider factual backdrop also matters. The UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation has publicly stated that the UAE labour market remains stable and that business continuity continues despite regional developments, while Emirates and Etihad have both confirmed that flights continue on reduced or limited schedules rather than having ceased altogether. That current reality significantly affects how “stranded abroad” arguments are assessed.

For UAE private-sector employers, the issue should not be framed emotionally as either “the employee must be paid no matter what” or “the employer may stop everything because of regional war.” Neither proposition accurately reflects the law. Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 and Cabinet Resolution No. 1 of 2022 establish a structured regime. Wages are protected and must be paid on time when due. Earned salary cannot simply be confiscated. But salary is still fundamentally linked to work, approved paid leave, or another recognised legal entitlement. If an employee remains outside the UAE, is not working, is not on approved paid leave, and cannot establish a legally cognisable excuse, the law generally supports non-payment for that period and may, in prolonged cases, support dismissal without notice.

This article is written in a practitioner-oriented style and is intended for serious legal and HR use. It focuses on the UAE private sector governed by MOHRE, not the public sector and not domestic workers, which are subject to different legislation. It also takes into account the present regional climate but proceeds from the legally important premise that the UAE itself is not under a general state of labour paralysis and that return travel, although disrupted at times, remains available in many cases.

1- The legal starting point: salary is protected, but it is not detached from performance

The most important starting provision is Article 26 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021. It states that the wage is paid in exchange for work and that the employer must enable the worker to perform the agreed work; otherwise, the employer remains obliged to pay the agreed wage. That provision is critical because it does two things at once. First, it preserves the ordinary principle that wages correspond to work. Second, it prevents employers from avoiding payment where the obstacle is on their own side. If the employee is ready, willing, and able to perform, but the employer does not allow the work to be performed, salary remains due.

The Executive Regulations reinforce that principle. They provide that the employer must enable the worker to work and pay the agreed wage. Even where the failure to enable work is due to circumstances beyond the employer’s control, the employer must inform the worker and still guarantee payment of wages. This is a strong pro-entitlement rule, but it operates in a specific factual setting: where the worker is not the cause of the non-performance. In other words, external disruption does not automatically permit an employer to suspend salary if the employee remains legally and practically available to work.

At the same time, these same provisions do not create an unconditional right to salary whenever the employee is abroad. If the worker is not working, is not on approved leave, and is not legally excused, then the fact that wages are protected does not mean wages have accrued. This is where many real-world disputes become conceptually confused. UAE law distinguishes between unlawfully withholding accrued salary and there being no entitlement to salary for a period of unauthorised absence. Those are not the same legal category.

2- “Withholding salary” versus “salary not being due” are different legal questions

Article 25 of the Labour Law states that no amount may be deducted or withheld from the worker’s wage except in listed cases, such as recovery of loans, social-security contributions, judicial debts, certain disciplinary deductions, and other recognised bases, all subject to statutory limits. The law also caps the total deduction or withholding in a way that protects the wage from arbitrary employer action. This means an employer cannot simply stop an employee’s earned salary because the employee later became absent, because the employer is angry, or because the employer wants to use salary as pressure.

This protection is reinforced by the UAE wage payment regime. MOHRE has repeatedly stated that private-sector establishments must pay wages on time and as agreed through the Wage Protection System. MOHRE’s wage guidance also says wages must be paid monthly, in the agreed amount and on the agreed date, through WPS or another approved mechanism. These are compliance duties, not optional practices.

But there is an equally important counterpoint. If an employee did not work during a particular period and had no approved paid leave or other legal entitlement, the employer is not “withholding accrued wages”; rather, wages for that period may never have accrued in the first place. That distinction is essential in stranded-abroad cases. An employer must pay salary for work actually done before the travel issue arose. It must also pay any accrued contractual or statutory entitlements that remain payable, including end-of-service dues when the contract ends. What it is not obliged to do, absent some other legal basis, is continue paying full salary indefinitely for a post-leave period in which the employee remains abroad and performs no work.

3- If the employee is abroad but still working, salary ordinarily remains payable

One of the simplest situations is where the employee remains outside the UAE but continues to work with the employer’s approval. UAE law recognises remote work expressly. The Executive Regulations define remote work as work performed wholly or partly outside the workplace through electronic communication in lieu of physical presence. They also recognise the remote work contract as one of the approved work models under the labour framework. In addition, Article 17 of the Labour Law states that if the worker wishes to perform work remotely, whether inside or outside the State, with the approval of the employer, the employer may require specific working hours.

In legal terms, a worker who is abroad but is still performing duties under an approved remote arrangement is not “absent from work” in the relevant sense. The employee is working. Therefore, wages remain payable in the ordinary course. The location of the employee outside the UAE does not, by itself, sever the employer’s duty to pay where the work continues to be performed and accepted.

This is particularly relevant for professional, advisory, administrative, technology, compliance, and managerial roles where physical presence is not always indispensable. In such cases, the legal question is not whether the employee crossed a border. It is whether the employee remained productive under a lawful work arrangement accepted by the employer. If yes, salary continues. If no, the analysis shifts toward leave or absence.

What the employee may not do, however, is declare unilateral remote work as a substitute for attendance. Remote work is a recognised arrangement, not a self-bestowed defence. The Regulations recognise it as a formal type of employment relationship or emergency work measure, which implies employer involvement and agreement. If the role genuinely requires attendance, or if no remote arrangement was approved, the employee cannot assume that logging in sporadically from abroad automatically preserves full salary entitlement.

4- Leave status is usually the decisive issue

In many “stranded abroad” cases, the legal problem is not really travel disruption but what happened when the employee’s leave ended. Under Article 29, annual leave is a paid entitlement. Article 33 then provides for unpaid leave, but only with the employer’s approval. Article 34 directly addresses the post-leave scenario: if the worker does not return directly to work without a legitimate reason after the end of leave, the worker is not entitled to wage for the absence period following the end of leave. That provision is central to this topic.

The structure of the law is deliberate. First, there is paid annual leave. Second, there may be unpaid leave, but it requires approval. Third, if leave expires and the employee does not return and cannot show a legitimate reason, salary stops for that post-leave absence period. This is not a discretionary punishment. It is the statutory consequence of absence after leave without an accepted legal basis.

That means the immediate legal questions in any stranded-abroad matter should be asked in this order. Was the employee still on approved annual leave? Did the employer approve an extension of annual leave? Did the employer approve unpaid leave? Was there another legal form of leave available, such as sick leave? If the answer to all of those is no, Article 34 becomes the key operative rule against ongoing salary entitlement.

This also shows why documentation is indispensable. Employers should clearly state the leave period, the return date, and whether any extension was approved. Employees should request any extension expressly and in writing. Ambiguity is dangerous in labour disputes. Once the original leave expires, silence is rarely helpful to the employee, and vague post hoc explanations are often legally weak compared with contemporaneous written requests and responses.

5- Sick leave from abroad: possible in principle, but only on genuine medical grounds

A second possible legal basis for continued absence is sickness. Article 31 of the Labour Law sets out the sick-leave regime. A worker suffering from disease not arising from a work injury must inform the employer within a period not exceeding three working days and submit a medical report issued by the medical entity. During probation, the worker is not entitled to paid sick leave, though the employer may grant unpaid sick leave based on a medical report. After probation, the worker may be entitled to up to ninety days of sick leave per year, calculated as fifteen days with full pay, thirty days with half pay, and the remainder unpaid. The worker is not entitled to wages for sick leave if the illness resulted from worker misconduct in cases defined by the Implementing Regulation.

Legally, this is important because it shows that absence abroad can still be lawful and partly or fully paid if the employee is genuinely sick and complies with the statutory reporting and evidence requirements. But the category is medical incapacity, not stress, unease, or general concern about regional instability. A worker cannot transform travel reluctance into sick leave without satisfying the legal conditions of Article 31.

So if an employee abroad is actually ill, supported by proper medical evidence, sick leave may become the correct legal framework. If the employee is merely anxious about travel risk or waiting to “see what happens,” that is not the same legal category. The employer is then entitled to ask: are you sick, are you on approved leave, are you working remotely, or are you absent without a current legal basis? UAE law expects those categories to remain separate.

6- Can the employer unilaterally cut salary because of regional conditions?

As a general rule, no. MOHRE’s contract-modification regime reflects that changes to work permits and employment contracts require a formal amendment process, and the amended contract is approved electronically after the requirements are satisfied. This supports the broader principle that salary terms cannot ordinarily be changed unilaterally by employer announcement. Material amendments require a proper legal basis and, ordinarily, documented contractual change.

There is, however, one important emergency qualification. Article 36 of the Executive Regulations provides that, in extraordinary emergency situations determined by a Cabinet resolution, work measures commensurate with the circumstances may be applied while taking into account the interests of all parties. These measures include remote work, paid leave, unpaid leave, and reducing the worker’s wage. The wording is important. This is not an open-ended private right of every employer to reduce wages whenever the geopolitical environment becomes tense. It is a structured emergency mechanism tied to a Cabinet-determined situation.

In the current factual landscape, the publicly stated position of MOHRE is that the labour market is stable and business continuity continues. Airlines are operating reduced or limited schedules, not complete cessation. Against that background, the better legal view is that ordinary labour-law rules continue to govern most cases unless and until a formal emergency framework is actually engaged in the required manner. Regional tension alone does not hand employers a blanket right to slash wages.

7- Can the employee rely on “risk” and refuse to return?

This is the most sensitive and most litigable issue.

The short legal answer is that there is no general right under UAE private-sector labour law for an employee to remain abroad on full salary merely because the employee believes travel is risky. The law does recognise safety-based protections, but not in that broad form. Article 45 allows the worker to quit without notice in specific cases, including where there is a grave danger at the workplace threatening the worker’s safety or health, the employer knows of it, and fails to take action indicating its removal. The language is workplace-specific, not region-wide and not travel-preference-based.

That distinction matters greatly. Article 45(3) is about grave danger at work. It is not a general doctrine allowing employees to remain outside the UAE whenever they feel uneasy about regional developments. Nor is it framed around speculative future danger or broad geopolitical discomfort. It is a targeted employment protection linked to the workplace and to the employer’s failure to remove an existing serious hazard.

The current public facts also weaken blanket risk arguments. MOHRE has publicly described the UAE labour market as stable and supportive of business continuity. Emirates states that, following the partial reopening of regional airspace, it is operating a reduced flight schedule and that passengers can check schedules and book seats. Etihad states that it resumed a limited commercial flight schedule after extensive safety and security assessments. These statements do not prove that travel is effortless. But they do undermine a broad assertion that return to the UAE is legally or physically impossible in every case.

That is why, in the present context, the strongest employee argument is not usually a broad “risk” theory. It is a fact-specific one. Was there genuinely no route available? Was there a temporary closure or confirmed cancellation with no realistic rebooking option? Was the employee seeking immediate return and documenting failed attempts? Or, instead, were flights still operating but more expensive, delayed, rerouted, or inconvenient? UAE law is much more likely to treat the second category as a matter for approval, coordination, or unpaid time, rather than as an automatic right to paid absence.

8- Force majeure and impossibility: often invoked, rarely decisive in ordinary employment absence disputes

Lawyers frequently reach for force majeure when war-related events arise. Under UAE civil law, however, force majeure is tied to impossibility, not mere hardship. Article 273 of the Civil Transactions Law states that in bilateral contracts, if force majeure arises and makes performance impossible, the corresponding obligation is extinguished and the contract is automatically rescinded. The same body of law also contains broader non-liability principles for prejudice caused by an external cause beyond one’s control.

These principles are important, but they must be handled carefully in labour law. If the employee can still return to the UAE through available or rerouted flights, even with difficulty and delay, the classic threshold of impossibility is hard to establish. Reduced schedules, higher fares, longer routes, or personal unease do not automatically amount to legal impossibility. In those circumstances, the employment relationship usually remains governed not by force majeure termination but by the ordinary labour rules on leave, work performance, salary, and absence.

This is especially so where the UAE itself remains legally and economically functional and where the labour authorities publicly continue to emphasize continuity and stability. The stronger analysis in most current cases is therefore not “force majeure has dissolved the wage obligation,” but rather: was the employee working, was leave approved, was there an accepted excuse, or had the absence become unauthorised? That is a much more faithful reading of how UAE labour law actually operates in practice.

9- When does the absence become dismissible?

This is where the statutory framework becomes much sharper. Article 44 of the Labour Law allows dismissal without notice in specified cases after a written investigation and a written, reasoned dismissal decision. One of those cases is where the worker is absent without a legitimate reason or an excuse accepted by the employer for more than 20 intermittent days in one year or more than 7 consecutive days. That threshold is directly relevant when an employee remains abroad beyond approved leave.

The wording deserves close attention. The law does not say that every absence of eight days automatically justifies dismissal. It says dismissal without notice may occur where the absence beyond the threshold is without a legitimate reason or excuse accepted by the employer. So there are several legal inquiries: how long was the absence, what explanation was given, was there evidence for it, did the employer consider it, and was refusal to accept it reasonable in the circumstances? Those are all case-specific issues that can matter greatly in a dispute before MOHRE or the courts.

Still, from a compliance and advisory perspective, Article 44(8) gives employers a clear statutory route when absence becomes prolonged and unjustified. Once the employee’s leave has ended, and once the employee has neither returned nor secured a valid alternative arrangement, the employer is not required to let the matter drift indefinitely. UAE law does not leave employers powerless in the face of prolonged non-return.

10- Unlawful absence also carries immigration and labour-market consequences

Article 50 of the Labour Law adds a further consequence for foreign workers. If a foreign worker leaves work for an illegitimate reason before the end of the contract term, the worker is not to be granted another work permit to join another job in the UAE for one year from the date of leaving work, subject to statutory rules and exceptions. The employer must notify the Ministry of the incident of absence according to prescribed procedures. This makes unauthorised absence more than a payroll issue; it can affect future mobility in the UAE labour market.

That said, employers should not treat Article 50 as a casual weapon. It is tied to illegitimate absence and formal notification procedures. It should therefore be used only where the factual and documentary basis is solid. Where the employee has been communicating, attempting to return, or seeking lawful arrangements, employers should be careful not to overstate the case. Conversely, employees should understand that unexplained or poorly documented non-return can have consequences beyond the immediate salary dispute.

11- Disciplinary deductions are limited and cannot replace proper legal classification

Article 39 allows disciplinary sanctions, including written notice, written warning, deduction from wage of up to five days per month, suspension from work for up to fourteen days without pay, deprivation of bonus or promotion in qualifying establishments, and termination while preserving end-of-service rights. The Implementing Regulation also requires an investigation process, written notice of charges, and notice of the outcome and penalty. More than one disciplinary sanction may not be imposed for the same violation.

This matters because employers sometimes try to blur together three different ideas: no entitlement to salary for days not worked, a disciplinary deduction, and termination for unauthorised absence. UAE law keeps those concepts separate. If leave ended and the employee simply failed to return, Article 34 addresses the wage consequence. If misconduct warrants disciplinary action, Article 39 and its procedures apply. If the absence exceeds the Article 44 threshold, dismissal without notice may become available. An employer should not use “disciplinary deduction” as a loose substitute for all three.

12- End-of-service rights and final payments remain protected

Even where the employer is justified in stopping salary for a period of unauthorised absence or even in dismissing the employee without notice, the employer must still deal properly with accrued final entitlements. Article 53 requires the employer to pay the worker, within fourteen days from the end date of the contract, all wages and other entitlements due under the Labour Law, the contract, or internal regulations more beneficial to the worker. That duty does not disappear merely because the employment relationship ended badly.

So if the employee had already earned salary before the absence, or had unused accrued rights payable on termination, the employer must settle those lawfully. The employer may contest salary for the unauthorised absence period, but it should not improperly withhold unrelated accrued entitlements. That is a common error in practice and one that can turn a defensible position into a non-compliance issue.

13- Practical application to today’s UAE context

In today’s climate, the legally correct approach should be realistic rather than alarmist. Flights have at times been cancelled or disrupted, but major UAE carriers publicly confirm that operations continue in reduced or limited form. MOHRE’s official messaging emphasizes labour-market stability and business continuity. Those facts do not eliminate individual hardship. They do, however, make it harder to sustain a broad claim that every employee remaining abroad is legally “stranded” in a way that automatically entitles them to full salary.

The better legal view is that there are several separate categories:

An employee who is abroad and still working remotely with approval should continue to be paid.

An employee who remains abroad during approved annual leave or another paid statutory leave should continue to be paid according to that entitlement.

An employee who secures approved unpaid leave may remain absent, but salary does not accrue during that period.

An employee whose leave has ended, who is not sick within Article 31, who is not working remotely, and who does not have a legitimate reason accepted by the employer is ordinarily not entitled to wages for the post-leave absence period.

An employee who continues such absence beyond seven consecutive days or twenty intermittent days risks dismissal without notice under Article 44(8).

That is the structure the law actually provides. It is neither employee-absolutist nor employer-absolutist. It is fact-sensitive and sequence-sensitive.

14- What employers should do

Employers should begin with classification, not confrontation. They should identify whether the employee is on leave, requesting leave, working remotely, claiming sickness, or simply absent. They should communicate in writing, ask for documentary support, and give clear responses. If the employee requests extension of annual leave or unpaid leave, the employer should state its position expressly. If remote work is operationally possible, that option should be considered before the matter escalates. If the employee provides medical documentation, it should be reviewed under the sick-leave rules.

If no lawful basis exists and the employee remains absent, the employer should stop salary only for the non-entitled period, not for previously earned wages. It should avoid arbitrary deductions outside Article 25. If disciplinary action is taken, it should follow Article 39 and the Regulation’s procedures. If dismissal becomes necessary, it should satisfy the Article 44 requirements, including investigation and written justification. On termination, all accrued final entitlements must be paid within the Article 53 period.

15- What employees should do

Employees should avoid assuming that regional tension automatically excuses delayed return. If return is genuinely impossible, they should document every cancellation, route failure, and rebooking attempt. If remote work is possible, they should request approval immediately and in writing. If they are medically unfit, they should comply with Article 31 and submit a proper medical report within the statutory period. If they need extra time but have no basis for paid leave, they should ask for unpaid leave and obtain express approval.

What employees should not do is remain silent after leave expires, assume that “general danger” is self-proving, or treat personal reluctance to travel as a guaranteed wage-preserving defence. Under current UAE law and current public conditions, that is a risky position.

16- Final legal conclusions

Under UAE private-sector labour law, an employer cannot lawfully withhold salary that has already been earned, nor may it make deductions except on recognised legal grounds and within statutory limits. Wages must be paid on time and as agreed through the Wage Protection System or other approved channels.

But that protection does not mean that salary must continue in every stranded-abroad situation. Where the employee is outside the UAE but still working remotely with employer approval, salary remains due. Where the employee is on approved paid leave, salary remains due in accordance with the leave entitlement. Where the employee is on approved unpaid leave, no salary accrues. Where leave has ended and the employee does not return directly to work without a legitimate reason, the employee is not entitled to wages for the post-leave absence period.

If the employee remains absent without a legitimate reason or an excuse accepted by the employer for more than seven consecutive days or twenty intermittent days in one year, dismissal without notice may become available under Article 44(8), subject to written investigation and proper process. If the absence is treated as illegitimate within Article 50, further labour-market consequences may follow.

As for the argument that the employee is refusing to return because of regional risk, the better legal view in the current UAE context is that this is not, by itself, a blanket defence. The Labour Law’s grave-danger provision is workplace-focused, not a general right to stay outside the UAE on full pay whenever regional conditions are tense. And with MOHRE publicly affirming labour-market stability while Emirates and Etihad continue reduced or limited operations, the mere existence of regional conflict does not automatically establish impossibility of return. A specific, documented, factual inability to travel is far stronger than a broad allegation of risk.

FAQs

Can an employer stop salary if the employee is outside the UAE and not working?

Usually yes, for the period after approved leave ends, if the employee is not working, is not on approved paid leave, and has no legitimate reason accepted by the employer. Article 34 is the key provision for absence after leave.

Can an employee demand salary while working remotely from abroad?

If the employer has approved remote work and the employee is actually performing duties, salary ordinarily remains payable. UAE law expressly recognises remote work.

Does general fear of regional war automatically justify not returning to the UAE?

No. UAE labour law does not provide a general paid-absence right based solely on broad security concerns. The safety-based quit-without-notice rule is directed at grave danger at the workplace, not general travel unease.

Can the employer terminate if the employee remains abroad too long?

Yes, potentially. Article 44(8) permits dismissal without notice where absence without a legitimate reason or accepted excuse exceeds seven consecutive days or twenty intermittent days in one year, subject to the required process.

Can the employer withhold earned wages or end-of-service dues because of the dispute?

No. Earned salary and final entitlements remain protected and must be settled according to the Labour Law, including Article 53 for post-termination payments.

Conclusion

The legally sound answer is therefore precise: an employer may generally stop paying for a period of unauthorised absence after leave expires, but may not unlawfully withhold earned wages or ignore approved leave, remote work, sick leave, or final statutory entitlements. In the present UAE context, where the country remains stable and flights continue in reduced or limited form, the strongest legal analysis is not based on broad rhetoric about war but on careful classification: work performed, leave approved, medical incapacity proved, or absence left unjustified. That is where UAE labour law places the dispute, and that is where employers and employees should address it

For any queries or services regarding legal matters in the UAE, you can contact us at (+971) 4 3298711, or send us an email at proconsult@uaeahead.com, or reach out to us via our Contact Form Page and our dedicated legal team will be happy to assist you. Also visit our website https://uaeahead.com