T.C. Supreme Court 9. Department of law, E. 2014/33001, K. 2016/4881, T. 7.3.2016
* Acceptance of notice compensation which is not requested in the case petition by the reclamation petition ( principle of procedural Economics – a decision must be made about the basis of the reclamation compensation of the plaintiff because of the termination of the employment contract, the notice compensation which the plaintiff did not demand in the case petition is due to the )

* Labor claims case (due to the principle of procedural Economics, a claim item related to Labor that is not requested in the case petition can be requested with a reclamation petition because it originated from the labor contract – due to the same relationship, a decision will be made about the basis of the notice compensation of the plaintiff )

* The principle of procedural economics (due to the principle of procedural Economics, an item of credit related to Labor that is not requested in the petition for reclamation can be requested by the petition for reclamation – the plaintiff wants the notice compensation that he did not demand in the petition for termination of the employment contract because of Reclamation/arising from the same relationship, the plaintiff )

4857 / m. 17

6100 / m. 176

Summary: the case is a Labor claims case.

Due to the principle of procedural economics, it is accepted that an item of credit related to labor that is not requested in the case petition can be requested by the reclamation petition because it originated from the labor contract. During the trial, the plaintiff requested compensation for the notice that he did not demand in the petition for termination of the employment contract. A decision must be made on the basis of the claimant’s notice compensation due to the stated principle and the same relationship. It is wrong to decide to reject this request on the grounds that the notice compensation is not requested in the petition of the lawsuit and cannot be requested in the form of Reclamation.

Lawsuit: the plaintiff requested that the payment of severance pay, overtime pay, wage claims, national holiday and general holiday fees, week vacation fees and annual leave fees be paid.

The Local Court has decided to partially accept the case.

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 plaintiff’s lawyer during the sentencing period.:

Verdict: a -) summary of Plaintiff request:

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant … owned … works in the firms receiving the tender, that they were issued on 31.12.2008, that the employment contract was terminated, and requested that it be decided to collect severance pay, overtime pay, national holiday-general holiday fee, week holiday fee, annual leave fee from the defendants.

B -) Summary Of Respondent’s Response:

The defendant … in the petition of reply, the defendant requested the dismissal of the case because it was decided that the administration was not a party to the contract of employment, that the parties of the contract were the other defendant and the plaintiff, and that the administration would not be responsible for anything according to the contract between the other defendant

… Acting for the defendant; 2006 -2007-2008 working in the company for years ,plaintiffs signed a waiver and prepare themselves about any the company declared they would sue to demand that they were related to the work of the plaintiff’s work separated from any receivables 31.12.2008 during this period of dismissal, arguing that he declares to have wanted to.

C) Summary Of Local Court Decision:

Based on the evidence collected by the court and the expert report, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment by the employer as unfair or cannot be proved for the right reasons on the grounds that severance pay, overtime pay, national holidays and public holidays fees, annual permit fees of requests acceptance, the cost of a week’s vacation and the compensation claim is dismissed.

D -) Appeal:

The decision was appealed within the legal term of the acting plaintiff.

E -) Rationale:

1 -) according to the legal reasons on which the decision is based by the evidence collected in the file, the plaintiff’s appeals that are outside the scope of the following clause are not in place.

2 -) in the procedural economy that serves the effectiveness of the trial, the judge is provided to reach a fair verdict without causing unnecessary time loss and unnecessary expense by facilitating the trial within the framework of the order stipulated by the law … this principle is defined as “providing justice cheap, quick and accurate”.

In the resident application of our department, due to the principle of procedural economics, it is accepted that a credit item related to labor that is not requested in the lawsuit petition can be requested by the reclamation petition. During the trial, the plaintiff requested compensation for the notice that he did not demand in the petition for termination of the employment contract. A decision must be made on the basis of the notice compensation of the plaintiff due to the principle stated above and due to the same relationship. It is wrong for the court to decide to reject this request on the grounds that the notice compensation is not requested in the petition and cannot be requested in the form of Reclamation.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 07.03.2016 that the appeal decision should be overturned due to the reasons stated above and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person if requested.