T.C. 9TH SUPREME COURT. DEPARTMENT OF LAW, E. 2014/33001, K. 2016/4881, T. 7.3.2016
- Breeding of compensation claimed in the petition that are not to be accepted by petition ( the principle of procedural economy – has not requested in the petition that the plaintiff’s compensation for termination of employment contract by breeding Wanted/arise from the same relationship of the compensation due to the claimant had to be decided on the merits of )
- LABOR RECEIVABLES LAWSUIT (A Receivable Item Related to Labor That Was Not Requested in the Lawsuit Petition Due to Its Origin from an Employment Contract in Accordance with the Principle of Procedural Economics Can Be Requested By a Reclamation Petition – Due to the Fact That It Arises From the Same Relationship, The Plaintiff Will Be Decided On the Merits of Notice Compensation)
The principle of PROCEDURAL ECONOMY ( in keeping with the principle of procedural economy arise from an employment contract due to workmanship of the item requested by the petition petition you will get with unsolicited breeding can be requested in the petition that the plaintiff’s compensation for termination of employment contract has not wanted by the breeding of/due to arise from the same relationship of the compensation to be decided on the merits of the claimant )
4857/m. 17
6100/m. 176
SUMMARY: The case is a labor receivables case.
It is accepted that a receivable item related to labor that is not requested in the lawsuit petition may be requested by the reclamation petition due to the fact that it originates from the employment contract in accordance with the principle of procedural economics. The plaintiff party requested compensation for the notice that it did not request in the lawsuit petition due to the termination of the employment contract during the trial by rectification. It is necessary to make a decision on the merits of the plaintiff’s notice compensation due to the stated principle and the fact that it arises from the same relationship. It is wrong to decide to reject this request on the grounds that the notice compensation was not requested in the lawsuit petition and cannot be requested by reclamation.
LAWSUIT: The plaintiff requested that it be decided whether they will receive severance pay and overtime pay, pay, national holiday and general holiday pay, week holiday pay, annual leave pay.
The local court has decided to partially accept the case.
Although it was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer during the sentencing period, after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
DECISION : A-) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:
The plaintiff, the defendant … belongs … claims that he works in companies that receive it by tender, they were removed on 31.12.2008, the employment contract was terminated, and asked the defendants to decide on the collection of severance pay, overtime pay, national holiday-general holiday pay, week holiday pay, annual leave pay.
B-) Summary of Respondent’s Response:
Defendant … in the response petition; the defendant requested the dismissal of the case because it was decided that the administration would not be responsible for anything according to the contract between the other defendant and the bakery and the other defendant dec that the administration was not a party to the employment contract and that the parties to the employment contract were the other defendant and the plaintiff.
Acting for the defendant; 2006 -2007-2008 working in the company for years ,plaintiffs and prepare themselves to demand a signed waiver related to the work of the company in any work they would sue declared that they were separated from during this period 31.12.2008 the plaintiff’s dismissal, arguing that he declares to have any receivables wanted to.
C-) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:
Based on the expert report and the evidence collected by the court, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment by the employer for the right reasons as unfair on the grounds that it cannot be proved by or severance pay, overtime pay, national holidays, public holidays fees, annual fees and permit the acceptance of requests, the cost of a week’s vacation and compensation claim is dismissed.
D-) Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff within the legal period.
E-) Justification:
1-)According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not valid.
2-) In the procedural economy that serves the effectiveness of the trial, it is ensured that the judge reaches a fair decision without causing unnecessary time loss and unnecessary expense by facilitating the trial within the framework of the order stipulated by the Law … it defines this principle as “cheap, quick and accurate provision of justice”.
In the established practice of our department; It is accepted that a receivable item related to labor that is not requested in the lawsuit petition may be requested by a reclamation petition due to the fact that it originates from an employment contract in accordance with the principle of procedural economics. The plaintiff party requested compensation for the notice that it did not request in the lawsuit petition due to the termination of the employment contract during the trial by rectification. Due to the above-mentioned principle and the fact that it arises from the same relationship, a decision must be made on the merits of the plaintiff’s notice compensation. It is erroneous to decide to reject this request on the grounds that the court’s notice compensation was not requested in the lawsuit petition and cannot be requested by reclamation.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided on 07.03.2016 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person if requested.
