10th Law Office
Base Number: 2020/2378
Decision Number: 2020/5230
“Justice Text”
Court: Labor Court
The case is related to the service determination request.
The court decided to accept the case for the reasons stated in its decision.
Upon the appeal of the judgment by the attorney of the defendant Institution, after it was understood that the appeal request was in due time and the report prepared by the Investigation Judge and the papers in the file were read, the necessity of the work was considered and the following decision was determined.
The attorney of the plaintiff demanded the determination of the periods for the period between 20.10.2004 and 06.06.2008 and the provision of the registration of the retroactive service before the Social Security Institution, and the court accepted the case in terms of the defendants … and …. 70 days between 10/2004-31/12/2004; 160 days between 01/01/2005-10/06/2005; 91 days between 12/09/2005-13/12/2005; 15 days between 01/01/2006-15/01/2006; from the defendants besides … 48 days between 01/05/2006-19/06/2006, 27 days between 18/09/2006-15/10/2006, between 01/01/2007-13/06/2007 It is determined that he worked for 162 days, 134 days between 17/09/2007-31/12/2007, and 30 days between 01/01/2008-31/01/2008; Although the lawsuit filed against the defendant … Cleaning and Construction Services Limited Company was dismissed, the Court considers that the start and end times of the education periods are taken into account when calculating the acceptance period, but these considerations are in place, but when calculating the working period of the workplace belonging to …, 2007/2008 education Despite the fact that the semester break in the academic year started on 28.1.2018, the decision to determine 30 days of service between 1.1.2008 and 31.1.2008 is against the procedure and the law and is the reason for breaking it.
So what; Since the rectification of this matter does not require a retrial, the judgment should not be quashed, but should be corrected and approved in accordance with Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in accordance with the provisional article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
CONCLUSION: The part “30 days between 01.01.2008-31.1.2008” in Article 1 of the provision was deleted and replaced with; It was unanimously decided on 30.09.2020 that the sentences “27 days between 01.01.2008 – 27.01.2008” be written and that the judgment be CORRECTED and APPROVED as it is.
