Republic of Turkey Supreme Court
9. Department of Law Base: 2015/ 36236 Decision: 2019 / 19791
Decision Date: 13.11.2019
JUDICIARY DECISION
COURT: LABOR COURT
The decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant’s attorney to be examined on appeal, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in time. After listening to the report prepared by the Investigation Judge for the case file, the file was examined, the need was discussed and considered:
JUDICIARY DECISION
A) Summary of Plaintiff’s Request:
Plaintiff’s attorney, the plaintiff’s employment contract between 04/05/2006-15/02/2012 as an “international truck driver”, non-payment of general holiday wages, insurance premium earnings not declared over real wages and wages are reduced, the plaintiff has justifiably terminated the employment contract. claiming that it was terminated, and demanded severance pay, general holiday pay, annual leave fee, unpaid wages.
B) Summary of Respondent’s Response:
The defendant’s attorney argued that as a result of the plaintiff’s fight with his colleagues, he left the workplace and quit his job, his final salary was 700.00 TL per month, if he worked on public holidays that coincided with the time he was abroad, his reward was paid by accruing in the payrolls, he used his leaves, but his demands were time-barred. requested the dismissal of the case.
C) Summary of Local Court Decision:
Based on the evidence gathered and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was right to terminate the employment contract.
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.
E) Reason:
1-According to the evidence gathered from the articles in the file and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, the objections of the defendant, which are out of the scope of the paragraph below, are not valid.
2- The dispute between the parties is gathered at the point of whether the claim of the claimant to receive the wage difference is exceeded or not.
In the petition, the plaintiff stated that his monthly wage was 1,250 Euros, but since the beginning of 2009, it has been reduced to 1,000 Euros without his consent, and requested a fee difference of 14,230,00 TRY. The expert has determined that the plaintiff has a wage difference of 21,060.94 TL. Despite the fact that the plaintiff did not correct the amount requested in the petition, the court exceeded the claimant’s request and ruled on the amount determined in the expert report, which was contrary to Article 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 and the decision had to be reversed.
F) CONCLUSION:
It was unanimously decided on 13.11.2019 that the appealed decision be OVERFINED for the reason written above, and that the appeal fee paid in advance would be returned to the concerned person upon request.
