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

Base: 2016/262
Decision: 2016/3937
Date of Decision: 16.02.2016

CASE OF WORKERS’ RECEIVABLES – IF THE PLAINTIFF APPEALED DURING THE PERIOD OF THE DEPUTY DECISION, BUT FILED A PETITION TO WAIVE THE APPEAL REQUEST AND HAS THE RIGHT TO WAIVE THE APPEAL FROM THE EXISTING POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE FILE – REFUSAL OF THE APPEAL REQUEST

ABSTRACT: Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed during the decision period, it was decided to reject the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal request and refund the advance appeal fee to the plaintiff if requested, as it was understood that he had filed a petition to waive the appeal request and had the right to waive the appeal from the existing power of attorney in the file.

(1475 P. K. m. 14) (4857 p. K. m. 41, 44, 47)

Lawsuit: The plaintiff has requested that it be decided whether they will receive severance pay, annual leave, overtime, national holiday and general holiday and week holiday pay.

The court partially ruled on the request, complying with the violation.

Although the parties were appealed by their lawyers during the sentencing period, after hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

I-From the point of view of the plaintiff’s appeal;

Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision within the time limit, it is understood that he filed a petition to waive the appeal request and that he has the right to waive the appeal from his existing power of attorney in the file, provisional Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100. article 432/4 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 1086, which continues to be applied in accordance with the application. according to the article, the refusal of the plaintiff’s attorney’s appeal request, the refund of the appeal fee received in advance to the plaintiff upon request,

II- From the point of view of the defendant’s appeal;

According to the articles in the file, the decision was suitable for overturning, there was no error in the discretion of the evidence, it was decided unanimously on 16.02.2016 to approve the provision in accordance with the procedure and the law by rejecting all appeals that were not considered out of place, to upload the cost of the appeal written below to the appellant.