.jpg?20260721')
A 70-year-old business owner is on trial for allegedly forging a former employee’s signature on a contract to make it appear as if he was working full-time at his company.
The 25-year-old, who was sacked after three months of working with the defendant for ‘not being suitable for the job’, had allegedly been officially designated as employed, without his knowledge.
He testified that he only found out about his so-called job when he visited the Social Insurance Organisation (SIO) to request unemployment benefits.
The young man also claimed that he lost access to his late father’s pension, since he appeared to be employed. His lawyer has demanded BD2,000 in civil damages from the defendant.
The elderly owner of the cargo handling company is on trial at the High Criminal Court accused of falsifying a signature on the contract, and submitting it to the SIO and the Labour Ministry, with knowledge that it was false.
On the contract, the Bahraini man was to be employed as a driver for BD300 a month, and the duration was open-ended.
The incident took place in 2022, when the defendant was 66 and the ‘victim’ was 21, but the case has only come to court now.
“I went to the Labour Ministry to apply for unemployment assistance, but it appeared that I was insured under a company,” the man earlier testified to the Public Prosecution.
“I later learned about the employment contract, which I did not sign. Since it indicated that I had a job, I missed out on unemployment benefits, and also my dad’s retirement salary.”
According to an SIO official, the young man was entered into the system through a request by the defendant, made online using his eKey.
Meanwhile, the suspect’s attorney stated that the defendant does not even know the ‘victim’, because more than 150 people work for his company.
“Previously, there was a valid employment contract between the young man and my client, but he was let go because he was not a good fit,” the lawyer said in a memo submitted to judges.
“The fact that there was a mix-up, due to confusion or an existent employment date, does not suffice by itself to prove that the defendant committed a crime, or that he intentionally submitted false information.
“And the truth behind the removal of the victim’s father’s pension is that he reached the legal age – 22 years – when these benefits are no longer given.”
The court set August 11 as the date for a verdict to be issued in the case.
zainab@gdnmedia.bh
&uuid=(email))