THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION THAT A HIGH PROPORTION OF “EQUITY REDUCTIONS” HAVE BEEN MADE

22 Dec THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION THAT A HIGH PROPORTION OF “EQUITY REDUCTIONS” HAVE BEEN MADE

T.C SUPREME COURT 22.Legal Department Base: 2019/ 5700 Decision: 2019 / 17173 Decision Date: 25.09.2019

ABSTRACT: In the concrete case, it was stated that a high amount of equity deduction was made by the court in terms of overwork and week break wages. However, it was incorrect that the discount rate was not specified and a large amount of discount was made. A reasonable discount should be made by considering the amounts of receivables that have been deciphered in relation to the specified items of receivables, while ignoring this aspect, the provision was erroneous and required a violation.

(1475 P. K. m. 14) (4857 p. K. m. 32, 41, 46, 47, 57)

Case and Decision: It was understood that the decision made as a result of the case between the parties was requested by the plaintiff and the defendants’ decoys to examine the appeal and that the appeals were pending. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:

Summary of the request for the plaintiff: the plaintiff’s attorney, the case of vague claims, noting that the plaintiff’s 17.07.2006 – 04.10.2011 working between the dates belonging to the defendant in the workplace and Labour has scrapped due to non-payment of receivables rightly citing the employment contract, severance pay, annual leave, minimum living allowance, overtime work, they wanted to take weekends and public holidays.

Summary of the Respondent’s Response: The defendants’ counsel requested the dismissal of the case, arguing that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated on the basis of the justified reason for the absence.

Summary of the court’s decision: based on the expert report and the evidence collected by the court, a written excuse was the case with the adoption of the decision of the regents of partial dated 19.11.2014 our apartment with a warrant from the parties on appeal, in the case of severance pay wages, and the minimum living allowance receivables receivables are actually ambiguous and hence can be determined in terms of legal claims be subject to the aforementioned demands of the case procedural basis and are entered on the absence of a benefit denial that while the decision is incorrect, more work, and weekend holidays, due to the fact that they will receive a national holiday and a general holiday, the defendant’s statute of limitations against breeding has been violated on the grounds that the treasury should be evaluated, and the discount rate for overwork and week break receivables has not been specified by the court, and the fact that an excessive amount of discount has been made is incorrect. At the end of the retrial, the Court decided to resist the decision to overturn it on the grounds that the case could be filed as an indefinite receivable case, the appeal against the statute of limitations was considered, the discount was appreciated, and how much it was made could be easily understood when the figures were examined. The decision to resist was appealed by the deputies of the parties. According to the decision of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Law dated 09.04.2019, the concrete dispute can be filed as an indefinite receivable case and the Court’s decision to resist cannot be taken into account, considering that the statute of limitations against reclamation is in place, according to the reasons for the violation described in the annulment of our Apartment, the defendants’ other appeals to the merits of the file will be sent to our Apartment for review, in terms of the discount made without specifying the rate for overwork and week break receivables, it was decided that the decision of the plaintiff’s attorney to resist the acceptance of appeals would be overturned.

Appeal: The decision was appealed by the plaintiff and the defendants’ deputies.

Justification: 1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision was based, it was necessary to decide on the rejection of all the plaintiffs’ other appeals of the plaintiff that fell outside the scope of the following paragraph by the defendants.

2-The dispute between the parties is collected at the point where the discount rate for overtime work and week break wages is not specified and dec discount is exorbitant.

It has become a stable practice that overwork should be calculated for a long period of time, and if the amount turns out to be high, a reasonable discount should be given by the Supreme Court. However, such a discount is not provided if the overwork is based on written documents and employer records, rather than witness statements. The discount to be made should be appreciated according to the way the worker works and the arrangement of the work, as well as the amount of overwork calculated. A discount should not be made at a rate that will eliminate the essence of the right.

In the concrete case, it was stated that a high amount of equity deduction was made by the court in terms of overwork and week break wages. However, it was incorrect that the discount rate was not specified and a large amount of discount was made. A reasonable discount should be made by considering the amounts of receivables that have been deciphered in relation to the specified items of receivables, while ignoring this aspect, the provision was erroneous and required a violation.

Conclusion: It was decided unanimously on 25.09.2019 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the interested parties upon request.