T.C SUPREME COURT 9.Legal Department Base: 2015/ 35548 Decision: 2019 / 19790 Decision Date: 13.11.2019

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

TRIBUNAL : EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL

It became clear that the decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant’s deputy to examine the appeal, and the appeals were within the deci-sion of the appeal requests. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s attorney’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not valid.

2-the part of the plaintiff lawsuits that are filed with whom detect the type of the EDA voluntary vague claims in terms of the beginning of interest in the application part of the case is identical with the principles of our apartment outside of severance pay under the terms in respect of purchased receivables, if requested by petition to sue you for the amount reclamation (demand increase) the term to the increased amount for reclamation (increase in demand) should be dominated, while with interest from the date of the execution of the entire case from the history of the receivables interest is faulty if the reason for the reversal, too, the correction of this mistake, because it does not require the provision of HMK the retrial.temporary 3/2. it can be done by sending a message.nun 438/7. according to the article, it has been decided to be corrected and approved.

result:

By completely removing paragraphs 2 and 5 of the paragraph “Provision ;

“Since 5,149.37 TL will receive net notice compensation, 1,000.00 TL will be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff from 25.06.2013, the date of the lawsuit, and the remaining 4,149.37 TL will be taken from the defendant with the legal interest that will be processed from 03.06.2014, the date of the claim increase,

Of the 1,371.93 TL net holiday fee receivable, 1,000.00 TL.as of 25.06.2013, which is the date of the lawsuit, the remaining amount is 371.93 TL.as of 03.06.2014, which is the date of the increase in demand, the highest interest rate applied to deposits by banks will be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, ”paragraphs are written, the provision is CORRECTED and APPROVED in this way, the Supreme Court Case Law of the Grand General Assembly of Unification dated 28.09.2018 and 2018/2 E. 2018/ 8K. it’s a numbered IBK. it was unanimously decided on 13/11/2019 that there is no place to receive approval fees in accordance with.