T.C SUPREME COURT 9.Legal Department, Base: 2015/ 36236 Decision: 2019 / 19791 Decision Date: 13.11.2019



It became clear that the decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the defendant’s deputy to examine the appeal, and the appeals were within the deci-sion of the appeal requests. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:


A) Summary of the Plaintiff’s Request:

The plaintiff’s attorney is the plaintiff’s 04/05/2006-15/02/2012 between dates “international worked as a truck driver, general holiday, the payment of fees, insurance premiums based on the actual salary of not declaring earnings as a basis for reduction of costs and, for reasons of employment was justified by the plaintiff argued that dissolved because of severance pay, general holiday fare, an annual permit fee, unpaid wage claims he wanted to.

B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:

Counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff’s coworkers by leaving the workplace as a result of fighting with leaving your job, the last net of the monthly fee 700.00 TL is the time that corresponds to where it is located if work on a general holiday abroad, paid for by bodro incurred in return, uses the permissions, but it demands time-barred, arguing that it was, has asked for a dismissal.

C) Summary of the Decision of the Local Court:

On the basis of the collected evidence and the expert report, the court decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that the plaintiff was justified in terminating the employment contract.

D) Appeal:

The defendant appealed the decision.

E) Justification:

1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not in place.

2- The dispute between the parties is collected at the point dec the claimant’s claim that the difference in wages has been exceeded has been exceeded.

The plaintiff stated in the lawsuit petition that his monthly fee was reduced from 1,250 euros to 1,000 euros without his consent since the beginning of 2009, stating that he will receive a wage difference of 14,230.00 TL. The expert has determined that the plaintiff will receive a fee difference of TL 21,060.94. Although the plaintiff did not rectify the amount requested in the lawsuit petition, the court exceeded the plaintiff’s request and ruled on the amount determined in the expert report of HMK 6100 26. it is contrary to the article and therefore the decision had to be overturned.


It was decided unanimously on 13.11.2019 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED for the reason written above, and that the appeal fee received in advance should be returned to the relevant person upon request.

Bir cevap yazın

E-posta hesabınız yayımlanmayacak. Gerekli alanlar * ile işaretlenmişlerdir