T.C.
SUPREME
LAW OFFICE
E. 2008/9842
K. 2009/7830
T. 4.6.2009
DETERMINATION OF THE WORK ( Declaration of Entry to Work, Declaration of Monthly Insurance Premiums, Even One of the Period Payroll Documents Has been Issued to the Institution, or If the Fact of Working with an Actual or Registered Insured by the Institution is Detected, There Can Be No Talk about the Period of Reduction of Rights )
(Determination of Work – Declaration of Entry to Work Monthly Declaration of Insurance Premiums Even One of the Period Payroll Documents has been Issued to the Institution or Cannot be Mentioned by the Institution in Case of Detection of the Phenomenon of Work Actually or Registered by the Insured )
THE PHENOMENON OF INSURED WORK ( Detection of Work – Declaration of Entry to Work Declaration of Monthly Insurance Premiums Even One of the Period Payroll Documents Has been Issued to the Institution, or If the Phenomenon of Actual or Registered Insured Work by the Institution Is Detected, There Can Be No Talk about the Period of Reduction of Rights )
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO THE INSTITUTION ( Even If One of the Documents Has been Provided to the Institution, or If the Institution Has Determined the Fact that the Institution Is Actually or Registered Insured, There Can Be No Mention of the Right-Reducing Period )
506/m.79/1
ABSTRACT : The plaintiff requested that the collection of labor receivables be decided by determining that the defendant worked for the employer. 79/1 Of the Law on what documents the employer must provide to the Institution regarding the insured persons. as clearly stated in the article, it is left to the regulation. In the cited Social Insurance Transactions Regulation, the documents to be provided to the Institution by the employer are; job entry declaration, monthly insurance premium declaration, period payroll, etc. are listed in the form. If even one of these documents has been issued to the Institution, or if the fact of work insured by the Institution, in fact or by registration is detected, there will be no mention of the right-reducing period.
CASE: The plaintiff requested that the collection of labor receivables be decided by determining that the defendant worked with the employer between Dec. 12.1998-31.5.2004.
The Court has decided to partially accept the request as stated in the announcement.
After it became clear that the appeal request was on time after the decision was appealed by the plaintiff’s deputy, and the papers in the file were read with the report organized by the Audit Judge Sultan Namazcı, the need for the work was considered and the following decision was determined:
DECISION : The case relates to the determination of the periods that have not been reported since the plaintiff worked continuously between 01 dec12.1998-31.05.2004, based on the contract of service at the defendant’s workplace, and the request of the defendant employer for labor receivables.
The Court decided to partially accept the claim for labor receivables and to dismiss the case for the period before the issuance of the notice of entry to work dated 21.4.200 from the right-lowering period.
The dispute is collected at the point of whether the right-lowering period has occurred in the case.
Employees, 3 of the Social Insurance Law No. 506. 2, provided that there are no exceptions specified in Article 2. they are considered to be self-insured in the event of the presence of the conditions prescribed in the article.
The norm that the insurance rights and obligations of insured persons and their employers will begin from the date the insured person is hired leads to the fact that the insured person can be registered.
79/10 Of the Social Insurance Law No. 506, which stipulates a lawsuit related to the detection of work that has passed without notification. it is defined in the article. These can be listed as being considered insured under Law No. 506, the documents determined in the regulation have not been provided to the Institution, or the work has not been determined by the Institution, and the said case has been opened within the period of disenfranchisement.
The insured may request the determination of his/her work, which remains undeclared, within five years from the end of the year when the claim period begins to be processed and the service has passed. The reduction period is provided for in terms of work that remains undeclared.
79/1 Of the Law on what documents the employer must provide to the Institution regarding the insured persons. as clearly stated in the article, it is left to the regulation. In the cited Social Insurance Transactions Regulation, the documents to be provided to the Institution by the employer are; job entry declaration, monthly insurance premium declaration, period payroll, etc. are listed in the form. If even one of these documents has been issued to the Institution, or if the fact of work insured by the Institution, in fact or by registration is detected, there will be no mention of the right-reducing period.
If there is an interrupted work, the existence of the case conditions for each work cycle that will occur before and after the interruption will be determined taking into account the above-mentioned facts.
Looking at the concrete case; It cannot be said that a part of their theft by the defendant employer was reported to the Institution and recorded; the content of the file and the payroll were not reported to the Institution according to witness statements, in the face of the fact that the phenomenon of continuous work in the alleged circuit has been proven, the period of demotion has passed. 26.02.2003 day of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law and 2003/21-44-98 ; 23.06.2004 days and 2004/21-369-371 these issues were also mentioned in their numbered Decisions.
The work to be done; the plaintiff’s 01.12.1998-31.05.2000 a lot of work between the dates dies, and of these studies 21.04.2000-31.05.2000 the period between the defendant is declared as full because the institution dates from this period, the re-determination is not made until the date 21.04.2000 01.12.1998 considering legal benefits from the date of notification consideration should be given to the receivables identified in the adoption of prompt decision by the plaintiff’s expert is going to result hesaplattirila labor.
The decision of the Court to reject the case in writing instead of partial acceptance of the case with incomplete examination and incorrect evaluation, without taking into account these material and legal facts, is contrary to the procedure and law and is the reason for the violation.
In that case, the plaintiff’s appeals aimed at these aspects should be accepted and the judgment should be overturned.
CONCLUSION : It was unanimously decided on 04.06.2009 that the judgment would be VIOLATED for the reasons described above, that according to the reason for the violation, the plaintiff’s other appeals would be examined, that it was not included for now, and that the appeal fee would be refunded to the plaintiff if requested.
