T.C. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
9.law office

Base: 2012/16304
Decision: 2014/20516
Date of Decision: 19.06.2014

CASE OF LABOR RECEIVABLES – THE NEED TO DECIDE ON THE LEGAL INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF THE EMPLOYER’S DEFAULT OR THE DATE OF THE CASE – THE APPLICATION OF THE HIGHEST DEPOSIT INTEREST WHILE THE LEGAL INTEREST SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE WAGE RECEIVABLE – THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

ABSTRACT: There is also no regulation in the law that labor receivables will be subject to the highest interest applied to deposits by banks. The legal interest must be decided from the date of the employer’s default or the date of the lawsuit. For this reason, the application of the highest deposit interest is a separate reason for disruption, while the legal interest should be applied to the fee to be charged by the court.

(6100 pp. K. m. 27, 107)

Lawsuit: The plaintiff requested that it be decided that the severance pay, the notice compensation and the general vacation pay and the annual leave fee will be paid.

The local court partially ruled on the request.

Having been appealed by the defendant’s lawyer during the sentencing period, the Examining Judge for the case file is M. T. after listening to the report edited by him, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

Decision: A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request: The plaintiff requested the defendant to collect severance, notice compensation and wages, general vacation and annual leave fees from the plaintiff, claiming that he worked as a cameraman in the defendant company and that the employment contract was terminated for no justifiable reason.

B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response: The respondent requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the employment contract was terminated for the rightful reason because the plaintiff did not come to work without permission.

C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:

The employment contract was terminated verbally by the employer after the court discussed it with the editor, the case was referred to HMK’s 107.it was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the starting date of interest rates for the increased portions was taken as the date of the case, considering that there is an indefinite receivable case regulated in the article.

D) Appeal: The defendant has appealed the decision.

E) Justification:1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legally required reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not in place.

2-The dispute between the parties is collected in the dec of whether the defendant’s right to legal rest has been violated, whether the annual leave fee has been calculated correctly, whether the applied interest rate and the interest rate have been correct.

In a concrete case, the defendant requested that his witnesses be heard by giving a witness list, and after the expert report by the court, the defendant requested, taking into account the stage at which the file arrived, the request was ordered. Refusal of the defendant’s request to hear witnesses on illegal grounds HMK 27.according to the article, it is a violation of the legal right to be heard, and therefore the provision had to be overturned.

3-It is incorrect that the plaintiff increases his demands with reclamation HMKN 107. according to the article, be treated as ambiguous claims, litigation and labor imposed receivables interest from the date of breeding should be executed is not the case when interest from the date of isletilmesidogru.

4-Dec. 5953 on press employees There is no provision in the Law on the Regulation of Relations Between Employees and Employees in the Press Profession that the annual leave fee will be calculated from the final fee. For this reason, while the plaintiff’s annual leave fee should be calculated according to the fee he received in the years when he deserved the leave, it is incorrect to calculate it in writing.

In the law No. 5-5953, there was also no regulation that the highest interest applied to deposits by banks will be imposed on business receivables. The legal interest must be decided from the date of the employer’s default or the date of the lawsuit. Therefore, while legal interest should be applied to the company’s receivable, the application of the highest deposit interest is a separate reason for disruption.

F) Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 19.06.2014 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reasons written above and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person upon request. (¤¤)

Synergy Legislation and Case Law Program