T.C.
Supreme
9. Legal Department

Principal No: 2014/22068
Decision No: 2014/37710
K. Historical:

Case: the plaintiff requested that the termination be void and that he be returned to work.
The Local Court ruled on the request.

After hearing the report issued by the trial judge for the case file, the file was examined, the case was discussed and considered as necessary, although it was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer during the sentencing period.:

SUPREME COURT DECİSİON

A) Summary Of The Plaintiff Request:
The plaintiff claimed that he was subjected to blasphemy and insults of his colleague on 17/07/2013, that he was terminated on 29/07/2013 on the grounds that the plaintiff ” instigated by insulting his colleague” as a result of the investigation initiated upon his passing the insults to his superiors, but that this reason is not valid and does not reflect the truth, the plaintiff claimed that the employment contract was terminated unfairly and in violation of the law, and that the termination

B) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:

The defendant stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for justified reasons in accordance with Article 25/II-d of the plaintiff’s employment contract …..on 17/07/2013, he filed a complaint by petitioning on the same day that he had insulted and blasphemed, an investigation was opened on the complaint, and according to the witness statements referred to in his testimony, the plaintiff was found to have instigated a coworker by insulting and causing a fight, and requested a dismissal of the case.

C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:

The court has decided to accept the case on the grounds that the chief of overseas tours is not the plaintiff, and that the chief of overseas tours who came out of his room is “you’re talking about me, I’ll put those words in your place”, both employees have been dismissed due to this controversy, and that the chief of overseas tours who caused the case is not the plaintiff

D) Appeal:
The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.

E) Citing:

Although the court has decided to accept the case on the grounds that it is not the plaintiff who caused the incident , the defendant’s witness statements are consistent with the plaintiff’s use of the words “ retarded, retarded” for another worker when the written statements of other workers referred to in the workplace investigation are taken into account.

In this case, the plaintiff’s words to another worker working in the workplace are offensive and the termination of the employer according to Article 25/2-d of the law No. 4857 is understood to be based on a justified reason, so the acceptance of the case instead of rejection is wrong.
In accordance with Article 20/3 of the Labour Law No. 4857, our office has decided as follows.

Provision: with the justification described above;
1. Overturning the court’s decision,
2. Dismisses case,
3. Since the tuition is received in advance, there is no room for re-receipt,
4.To be left over the trial expense made by the plaintiff, to be paid to the defendant with the collection of trial expense of try 136.00 made by the defendant from the plaintiff,
5.According to the tariff in force at the date of the decision, the fee of £ 1,500 is taken from the claimant and given to the defendant,
6. Return of the appeal fee received in advance to the defendant at his request,
It was definitively decided by unanimous decision on 09.12.2014.