T.O
SUPREME
21. LEGAL DEPARTMENT
PRINCIPAL NO: 2016/19742
DECISION NO: 2018/2740
DECISION DATE: 22.03.2018
Tribunal :Employment Tribunal

>WORKER SERVICE IDENTIFICATION CASE, THE CASE FILE OF LABOR CLAIMS IN TERMS OF SERVICE IDENTIFICATION REQUEST IS STRONG EVIDENCE AND IS NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.

The plaintiff requested that the work of the defendant’s employer be determined between 08/02/2007 and 13/01/2009.
The court has decided to accept the request as stated in the warrant.Upon appeal of the sentence by the defendant’s attorney, the papers in the file were read with the report issued after it was understood that the appeal request was in its duration, the work was considered necessary and the following decision was made.

DECISION

The case is related to the plaintiff’s request to determine that the defendant worked continuously at work between 08.02.2007-13.01.2009.

The court has decided to accept the case.

The dispute is gathered at the point of whether the plaintiff’s request for service determination is proved by his method.

79/10 of Law No. 506, which constitutes the legal basis of the case. and 86/9 of Law No. 5510. although the articles do not provide a specific method of proof for such service identification cases, the nature of the case concerns public order and therefore with special sensitivity and care
it is by the settled case law of the Supreme Court and increasingly our department that it should be carried out. In such cases, it must first be investigated by the method of whether the documents relating to the work of the plaintiff were issued by the employer. If this condition has occurred, it should be fully determined whether the place of work really exists within the scope of the law or whether it is of a nature to be covered and then the existence of the case of work should be investigated with special sensitivity.

Although the case of work can be proved with all kinds of evidence, the subject, the nature of the work, the words of the witness should be evaluated regarding the start and end dates, attention should be paid to select the heard witnesses from the payroll witnesses who worked in the same period as the plaintiff and the employer’s official records or from the employees who The fact of working with the testimonies of these witnesses should be determined in such a way that there is no doubt or hesitation. 16.9.1999 days of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of law 1999/21-510-527, 30.6.1999 days 1999/21-549-555- 3.11.2004 day 2004/21-resolution 480-579 is in this direction.
The case file of Labor claims in terms of Service determination request is strong evidence and is not conclusive evidence.

In the concrete case, it was wrong to go to the result in written form without taking into account the fact that the result was obtained by taking into account the documents and records in the content of the case file that the court will receive labor, and accordingly, the finalized labor receipt will not constitute a basis in the case of Service determination alone. The work to be done is to refer to the insured persons mentioned in the payrolls of the respondent workplace for the period subject to dispute as witnesses and to refer to their statements; if the statements of the witnesses are not satisfied or if their addresses are not reached, to refer to the statements of the employers of the neighboring work places to be identified through, it consists of evaluating all the evidence collected together by expanding the investigation into the nature of the case as a matter of Public Order and making a decision by the court according to its conclusion, considering whether the case had undergone a reduction in rights.

The court, without taking into account these material and legal facts, incomplete examination and research and the establishment of a written judgment is contrary to the procedure and the law and is a cause of corruption. Then appeals aimed at these aspects of the defendant’s workplace must be accepted and adjudicated
it must be broken.

Conclusion: it was decided unanimously on 22.03.2018 that the provision should be overturned for the reasons described above and that the appeal fee should be returned to the defendant upon request.