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

Base: 2014/19136
Decision: 2014/23067
Date of Decision: 08.09.2014

CASE OF EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES – THE PLAINTIFF DEFAULTED ON THE EMPLOYER IN TERMS OF THE SAID RECEIVABLES – THE OPERATION OF THE HIGHEST INTEREST APPLIED TO DEPOSITS BY BANKS FROM THE DATE OF DEFAULT ON THE RECEIVABLES OF OVERWORK AND GENERAL VACATION

ABSTRACT: In a concrete case, the plaintiff requested payment of overwork and general vacation receivables with a warning to the employer before the date of the lawsuit and defaulted the employer in terms of the said receivables. According to the lawsuit and reclamation petition, it is also requested that the interest rate be determined from the date of default on these receivables; The highest interest applied to deposits by banks from the date of default should be applied to the receivables of overwork and general vacation. The judgment of interest from the date of litigation and reclamation was erroneous and required to be overturned.

(4857 P. K. m. 34) (6100 p. K. m. 297)

Lawsuit: Plaintiff-counter-defendant requested that severance pay, overtime pay and national holiday and general holiday pay be paid, and defendant-counter-plaintiff requested that the collection of notice compensation and material cost receivables be decided.

The court partially ruled on the request.

Having been appealed by the plaintiff-defendant’s lawyer against the plaintiff during the period of conviction, the Examining Judge for the case file F. After listening to the report edited by Yücesoy, the file was reviewed, discussed and considered as necessary:

The Decision of the Supreme Court

Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:

The plaintiff- counter-defendant claimed that he had terminated the employment contract for good reason and requested that they would receive severance pay and overtime work and general vacation.

Summary of the Respondent’s Response:

The defendant-counter-plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the basis of the just cause of absence and that the employee who left the job for no reason should pay notice compensation, requested that the case be dismissed and that the plaintiff be sentenced to pay notice compensation and the cost of undelivered materials.

Summary of the Court Decision:

On the basis of the collected evidence and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the main and counterclaim cases.

Appeal:

The decision was appealed by the deputy plaintiff- defendant against the plaintiff.

Reason:

1. According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision was based, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all appeals of the plaintiff-defendant against the defendant outside the scope of the following paragraphs.

2. 297/2 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100. in Article “(2) In the concluding part of the provision, it is necessary to show the debts and recognized rights charged to the parties under the ordinal number in such a way as not to cause obvious, doubt and hesitation with the provision given about each of the claims, without repeating any mention of the justification, without repeating it.” the provision has been included.

It is understood that no positive or negative provision has been established by the court about the claimant’s claim for severance pay. The fact that no positive or negative provision was established about the plaintiff’s request for a part was erroneous and required a violation.

3. The plaintiff made a request for overtime pay and general vacation pay of the employee, and the court decided to accept the request.

Overwork and general vacation pay are broadly defined as wages and are included in Article 34 of the Labor Code No. 4857. according to the article, in case of non-payment on the day of the highest interest rate applied by banks on deposits should be decided.

If the employer defaults before the date of the lawsuit, interest must be charged from the date of default, depending on the request. In addition, interest should be decided limited to the amounts requested from the dates of the lawsuit and reclamation/additional litigation.

In a concrete case, the plaintiff requested payment of overtime and general vacation receivables with a warning to the employer before the trial date and defaulted on the employer in terms of the said receivables. According to the lawsuit and reclamation petition, it is also requested that the interest rate be determined from the date of default on these receivables; The highest interest applied to deposits by banks from the date of default should be applied to the receivables of overwork and general vacation. The judgment of interest from the date of litigation and reclamation was erroneous and required to be overturned.

Conclusion: It was unanimously decided on 08.09.2014 that the appealed decision should be overturned for the reason written above, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person upon request.