In The Expert Report Which Is The Basis For The Court’s Decision, It Is Wrong That Food and Housing Assistance Are Not Taken Into Account In The Calculation Of Extended Wages

04 Apr In The Expert Report Which Is The Basis For The Court’s Decision, It Is Wrong That Food and Housing Assistance Are Not Taken Into Account In The Calculation Of Extended Wages

T.C. SUPREME

22.Legal Department
Basis: 2016/15857
Verdict: 2016/18919
Decision Date: 23.06.2016

CASE OF WORKERS ‘ RECEIVABLES – IN THE EXPERT REPORT, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR THE COURT’S DECISION, IT IS WRONG TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE LACK OF FOOD AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE IN THE CALCULATION OF CLOTHED WAGES – THE CLOTHED WAGES SHOULD BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRECEDENT WAGES

Abstract: in a concrete case, the court’s decision is based on the expert report that does not take into account food and housing assistance in the calculation of clothed wages is wrong and examined by our department, in the files on precedent workers (our department …../….. main series) monthly for workers working on the defendant’s construction sites abroad…….. The fee charged must be determined by evaluating the admission that the TL is provided for food and housing assistance. A decision made by a misleading assessment was not a hit, but rather a violation.

(4857 P. K. m. 17, 41)

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

The court granted the request in part.

Although the parties ‘ lawyers appealed during the sentence and the defendant’s lawyer requested a hearing; since there is no postage stamp to be attached to the invitation to notify the parties of the day of the hearing, the hearing request was rejected and the review was made on the document, the report organized by the examination Judge … was submitted, the file was reviewed, the need was discussed and considered:

The plaintiff’s Attorney, his client work on construction sites between the dates of the defendant’s overseas 2005-2008, of the labour contract is terminated by the employer without Just Cause, if Saudi Riyal 9,00 net fee and three meals a day, shelter, and social benefits such as severance pay that is made of warming from the collection by specifying the defendant required.

The defendant’s attorney asked for the dismissal of the case by stating that the plaintiff’s claims had expired, that his client was not the plaintiff’s real employer, that the plaintiff had been paid or that his work had been terminated due to liquidation, that the claims were unfair and unwarranted.

Based on the evidence collected as a result of the trial and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on Written grounds.

The decision has been appealed by the parties.

1-according to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the appeals of the defendant, whose reasons are not specified, and the appeals of the plaintiff, which are outside the scope of the following bend, are not in place.

2-32 of the Labor Code 4857 in the determination of dressed wages, which will be based on severance and notice compensation. in addition to the actual wage mentioned in the article, the money provided to the worker or the benefits that can be measured by money are taken into account. Accordingly, bonuses, continuity bonuses, fuel assistance, clothing assistance, rent, lighting, service assistance, food assistance and similar payments are taken into account in the severance pay account.

In a concrete case, the fact that food and housing assistance are not taken into account in the calculation of wages dressed in the expert report, which is the basis for the court’s decision, is wrong, and in the files of precedent workers examined by our department (our department…../….. basic series) The defendant’s salary must be determined by evaluating the acceptance that the workers working on construction sites abroad are provided with food and housing assistance of 150.00 TL per month. A written decision with a misleading assessment was not accurate and required a violation.

Conclusion: a unanimous decision was made on 23.06.2016 to overturn the Appeal decision for the reasons shown above, to return the appeal fee received in advance to the relevant person on request.