T.C.
SUPREME
9. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
E. 2016/33150
K. 2017/21641
T. 18.12.2017
* The employer uses his social and economic superiority to demand a written resignation from the worker under similar pressures to pay the compensation (if the worker complies with this, there can be no real will to resign/in this case the termination will be accepted by the employer but this situation must be proved by the worker )

* Return to work with the invalidity of the Fez ( the worker’s right to terminate the employment contract without a reason and without prior notice is considered as resignation / the most common form of the application, the worker’s demand to leave on condition that the rights of notice and severance pay are paid, not as resignation, but as necessary to make a )

* Termination of the employment contract without justification and without prior notice (it is understood that the plaintiff, who is a workplace physician, has terminated the employment contract with his own hand crop petition and cannot prove with concrete evidence that this document was taken from him by crippling his will/the worker who has terminated the employment contract cannot claim the invalidity of the termination )

4857 / m.20/3

Summary: The plaintiff requested that the termination be ruled invalid, returned to work and its legal consequences. The termination of the employment contract without a justifiable reason and without prior notice should be considered as resignation. The most common form in practice is the demand to leave, provided that the worker’s right to notice and severance pay is paid, should not be considered as a resignation, but rather as a requirement to make an annulment contract. If the employer uses its social and economic superiority to demand a written resignation from the worker under conditions of payment of compensation and similar pressures, and the worker complies with it, there can be no real will to resign. In this case, it must be accepted that the termination was carried out by the employer. However, this must be proved by the worker of will mischief.According to the contents of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff, who is a workplace physician, ended his employment contract with his own hand crop petition, and it is understood that he could not prove with concrete evidence that this document was taken from him by crippling his will. The worker who terminates the employment contract himself cannot claim the invalidity of the termination. Acceptance of the case instead of dismissal is wrong.

Lawsuit: the plaintiff requested that the termination be ruled invalid, reinstated and legal consequences.

The Local Court has decided to accept the case.

Although the sentence was appealed by the defendant’s lawyer during the trial period, it was decided to reject the request for a hearing due to the nature of the work, to make the examination on the document, and after hearing the report prepared by the examination Judge for the case file, the file was examined, and it was discussed and considered:

Verdict: acting plaintiff; 05/01/2015 before defendant employer – It was stated that the plaintiff who worked as a workplace physician between 31/12/2015 was forced to resign due to unfounded accusations as many complaints were received about him, otherwise the employment contract would be terminated on the same day and he would be forced to leave without payment of any Labor and compensation, and that the plaintiff, who faced the threat of being thrown out of the door, he claimed that he had been forced to resign under pressure and threat and demanded that the termination be ruled invalid and that the plaintiff be returned to work.

The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff was a highly trained medical doctor and had to sign the minutes presented to him in the petition, but he refused the case by arguing that he had terminated the employment contract with his own free will and his own handwritten resignation petition, and that the plaintiff had the knowledge and competence to predict the results of his

The court ruled that” the termination of the employment contract and the dismissal of the plaintiff worker by the defendant employer is not in accordance with the Labour Law legislation, the dismissal procedure and procedure, the principle of equal treatment among the employees and termination being a last resort, in the face of the fact that it is not appropriate for the ordinary course of life for <

The defendant’s attorney appealed the decision.

In order for the worker to benefit from the work assurance provisions, the employment contract must be terminated by the employer. The worker who terminates the employment contract cannot request the invalidity of the termination and return to work.

The termination of the employment contract without a justifiable reason and without prior notice should be considered as resignation. The most common form in practice is the demand to leave, provided that the worker’s right to notice and severance pay is paid, should not be considered as a resignation, but rather as a requirement to make an annulment contract. If the employer uses its social and economic superiority to demand a written resignation from the worker under conditions of payment of compensation and similar pressures, and the worker complies with it, there can be no real will to resign. In this case, it must be accepted that the termination was carried out by the employer. However, this must be proved by the worker of will mischief.

According to the contents of the file, it is understood that the plaintiff, who is a workplace physician, ended his employment contract with his own hand crop petition, and it is understood that he could not prove with concrete evidence that this document was taken from him by crippling his will. The worker who terminates the employment contract himself cannot claim the invalidity of the termination. Acceptance of the case instead of dismissal is wrong.

In accordance with Article 20/3 of Labour Law No. 4857, our office has decided as follows.

Conclusion: with the justification described above;

1.Overturning the court’s decision,

2.Dismisses case,

3.Since the tuition is received in advance, there is no room for re-receipt,

4.To be left over the cost of the trial made by the plaintiff, the defendant made TL 205.00. collection of trial expenses from the plaintiff and payment to the defendant,

5.Determined according to the tariff in force at the date of the decision 1,980.00 TL. the fee to be taken from the plaintiff and given to the defendant,

6.Return of the appeal fee received in advance to the defendant upon request,

Definitively, it was decided by unanimous decision on 18.12.2017.