T.C. SUPREME
9.Legal Department

Basis: 2012/16304
Verdict: 2014/20516
Decision Date: 19.06.2014

LABOR CLAIMS CASE – THE REQUIREMENT THAT LEGAL INTEREST BE DECIDED ON THE DATE OF DEFAULT OF THE EMPLOYER OR FROM THE DATE OF THE LAWSUIT – THE APPLICATION OF THE HIGHEST DEPOSIT INTEREST, WHILE LEGAL INTEREST SHOULD BE APPLIED TO THE FEE-VIOLATION OF THE PROVISION

Abstract: the law also does not include an arrangement that Labor receivables will be governed by the highest interest applied to deposits by banks. Legal interest must be decided from the date of default of the employer or from the date of the lawsuit. For this reason, the application of the highest deposit interest is a separate cause of distortion, while the legal interest should be applied to the fee by the court.

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

Case: the plaintiff requested that the payment of severance pay, notice compensation, general holiday fee and annual leave fee be made.

The Local Court partially overturned the request.

During the sentence, the defendant’s lawyer appealed, and the judge of the examination for the case file M. T. after the report was listened to, the file was examined, and the need was discussed and considered:

Decision:A) summary of the plaintiff’s request: the plaintiff worked as a cameraman in the defendant’s company and asked the defendant to collect severance, notice compensation and wages, general vacation and annual leave fees, claiming that the employment contract was terminated without justifiable reason.

B) summary of the respondent’s response:the defendant asked for the dismissal of the case, arguing that the act of work was terminated for the right reason because the plaintiff did not come to work without permission.

C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:

The court ruled that the employment contract was verbally terminated by the employer after a discussion with the editor, and the case was dismissed by HMK 107.considering that it is an indefinite receivables case organized in the article, it was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the start date of interest for the increased parts was taken as the date of the case.

D) appeal:the defendant appealed the decision.

E) justification:1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal 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 questions of whether the defendant’s right to a legal hearing has been violated, whether the account of the annual leave fee has been made correctly, the interest rate applied and whether the start of interest is correct.

In a concrete case, the defendant gave a list of witnesses and demanded that his witnesses be heard, and after the expert report by the court, the defendant made a request, taking into account the stage at which the file came. Denial of the defendant’s request to listen to witnesses on illegal grounds HMK 27.according to the article, it is a violation of the right to a legal hearing, and therefore the provision should be violated.

3-107 of Hmkn in the wrong way that the claimant increased his claims with reclamation. according to the article, it is not true that interest should be executed from the date of litigation and reclamation, while interest should be executed from the date of litigation.

4-in the law No. 5953 on the regulation of relations between employees and employees in the press profession related to press employees, there is no provision that the annual leave fee will be calculated from the last fee. For this reason, it is wrong to calculate the annual leave fee of the plaintiff in writing, while it should be calculated according to the fee he receives in the years in which he deserves the Leave.

In law 5-5953, there is also no regulation that business receivables will be governed by the highest interest applied to deposits by banks. Legal interest must be decided from the date of default of the employer or from the date of the lawsuit. For this reason, while legal interest should be applied to the fee, the application of the highest deposit interest is a separate cause of disruption.

F) conclusion: a unanimous decision was made on 19.06.2014 to overturn the Appeal decision due to the reasons written above, to return the appeal fee received in advance to the relevant person on request.