Employee receivables are regulated in our Labor Code No. 4857 and are paid, compensated, etc., which are the equivalent of the employee’s work and labor. these are monetary values.
The problem of labor rights and receivables arises when workers leave or are removed from the places of work where they work. Most often, the employer and the employee disagree on this issue, and the labor rights and receivables are brought to court through litigation.
Receivables that are ruled in favor of the employee in labor cases are often settled on a gross basis, and it is decided to take into account the deductions at the stage of execution. In enforcement proceedings, it should first be looked at whether the court has ruled on the receivables as gross. If the employee’s receivables are provided as gross, the necessary deductions should be made and the receivables should be converted into net and monitored over these amounts.
It is contrary to the law that employee receivables are placed in gross ilam enforcement proceedings without being translated into intent and are the subject of a complaint. The complaint in question is related to public order due to the fact that it is a separation in the enforcement proceedings of ilam, and it can be sued indefinitely in the enforcement court through a complaint.
The Supreme Court’s Decision on the issue is as follows;
T.C.COURT OF CASSATION 8. IT’S THE LAW OFFICE. 2015/17339K. 2015/20274T. 12.11.2015
“SUMMARY : The case is related to the request for cancellation of the proceedings. In case of continuous enforcement proceedings, the complaint that the items of receivables are requested as gross and that legal deductions are not made is contrary to the law and such complaints may be brought before the Executive Court indefinitely due to the fact that they are related to public order. In this case, a decision should be made by the Court according to the result that will be formed by conducting an expert examination if necessary, while the rejection of the complaint from the deadline is not correct.
CASE: Upon request of the plaintiff for the examination of the appellant within the time limit of the Court decision with the date and number written above, the file related to this work was sent from the scene to the Apartment, and after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was heard and all the documents in the file were read and examined, the work was discussed and considered as necessary:
DECISION : The debtor’s deputy is appointed by the creditor Kırşehir 1. In accordance with the decision No. 2013/216 of 2015/49 of the Court of First Instance dated 20.01.2015, the enforcement proceedings initiated against his client with the follow-up file No. 2015/1229 of the Kırşehir Enforcement Directorate requested that the items of receivables be canceled, stating that the legal deductions were requested as gross, and no legal deductions were made.
Since the 7-day complaint period has been passed by the court since the notification of the executive order, the decision to dismiss the complaint in terms of time has been appealed by the debtor’s attorney.
In case of continuous enforcement proceedings, the complaint that the items of receivables are requested as gross and that legal deductions are not made is contrary to the law and such complaints may be brought before the Executive Court indefinitely due to the fact that they are related to public order. (HGK’s Decision dated 21.06.2000, numbered 2000/12-1002)
In this case, a decision should be made by the Court according to the result that will be formed by conducting an expert examination if necessary, while the rejection of the complaint from the deadline is not correct.
CONCLUSION: Provisional Article 3 of IIK No. 366 and HMK No. 6100 for the reasons written above of the Court decision on the acceptance of the appeals of the debtor’s deputy. article 428 of HUMK No. 1086. in accordance with articles 388/4 of the CMB by the parties to its deterioration. ( H.M.m.297/o ) and IIK’s 366/3. in accordance with the articles, it was decided unanimously on 12.11.2015 that a request for correction of the decision can be made within 10 days from the notification of the Supreme Court of Appeal and the refund of the advance fee of 27.70 TL to the plaintiff upon request.”
