T. C.
Supreme Court
9. Legal Department

Principal No: 2014/14603
Decision No: 2015/30987
Date of issue: 3.11.2015

The plaintiff has requested the decision to pay the permission fee.
The local court decided to partially accept the case.
After the appeal was filed by the defendant lawyer within the period of the sentence, the case file was reviewed by the Inspection Judge and the file was examined.

SUPREME COURT DECISION

A) Summary of the Claimant’s Claim:
The attorney of the plaintiff in the petition summary; his client started work in the press house of the defendant university on 03.04.1990 and continued working uninterruptedly until 14.01.2013. the defendant from the defendant wanted to be decided.
B) Summary of Respondent Response:
The defendant requested the dismissal of the case.
C) Summary of local court decision:
According to the court, the evidence collected and the expert report, the plaintiff between 02.04.1990 and 14.01.2013 between the uninformed workplace in the workplace, stating that the annual laws of the court not using the annual leave, the plaintiff uses the annual leave in the period when the written document by the defendant employer should be proved, but the defendant employer did not submit any documents to that effect;
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.

E) Rationale:

1-According to the legal reasons that the decision is based on the manuscripts collected and the evidence collected, the appeals of the defendant are outside the scope of the subparagraph.

2- In the translation of the gross receivable to the net by the expert, it is incorrect to calculate the social security premium and the unemployment insurance deductions without any consideration.

3- According to article 56 / b of the law numbered 2547, it is forbidden for the defendant university to be exempted from fees.

4- It is wrong to think that the amount of gratitude is not clear or gross.

F) Result:
The decision of the appeal, because of the reasons written above, was decided unanimously on 03.11.2015.