This ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, dated November 29, 2023 and appeal number 448/2023, addressed the situation of a worker who is fired while she was in litigation with the company. In this judicial process, the worker sought to be recognized as a permanent rather than temporary employee.

The Social Court No. 28 of Madrid issued a ruling in which it recognized the worker's non-fixed indefinite status; both parties challenged this resolution. However, before a final ruling was handed down, the company announced the termination of the temporary contract, alleging that the ruling was not yet final.

The court argues that the decision to terminate the contract was not based on compliance with the maximum term of the contract, but on the worker's request to be considered as indefinite employment personnel. Therefore, the court concludes that the company acted with a purpose that was harmful to the worker's fundamental right to effective judicial protection.

In this specific case, the court awarded the worker additional compensation of 7,501 euros due to the moral damages experienced due to the violation of her right to effective judicial protection.

The ruling maintains that the proven facts about the business conduct demonstrate the existence of non-material damage to the plaintiff, thus supporting the additional compensation requested. Regarding the amount of 7,501 euros, the court considers that it is appropriate according to the provisions of the Law on Infractions and Sanctions of the Social Order, which establishes a fine for very serious misconduct in the workplace in that range.

The ruling highlights that this compensation not only repairs the moral damages suffered, but also fulfills a preventive and dissuasive function for the company.

Furthermore, the TSJM ratifies the ruling of the Social Court number 21 of Madrid, which declared the dismissal null and void, ordering the reinstatement of the worker and the payment of wages not received since her dismissal.

This ruling joins a growing number of rulings that support additional compensation for dismissal, arguing moral damages or loss of income. Although the disparity in judges' criteria persists due to the lack of jurisprudence, this case reinforces the tendency to recognize additional compensation in similar cases.