T.C.
SUPREME
9. law office
E. 2005/19254 – K. 2005/34532 – T. 25.10.2005
• FIXED-TERM SERVICE CONTRACT (It Is Necessary to Investigate Whether the Employee Who Was Terminated Before the Deadline Is Working in Another Workplace During the Balance Period, Is Looking For a New Job and Has Income That He Deliberately Refused to Receive)
• BALANCE CONTRACT PERIOD FEE (Whether He Works in Another Workplace During the Balance Period, Whether He Is Looking for a New Job, and Whether He Has Income That He Has Deliberately Waived to Obtain Should Be Investigated)
* DISCOUNT CONDITIONS ( A Discount Should be Made on the Balance Contract Period Fee, which Will Be Calculated Taking into Account the Values Saved by the Employee Due to the Inability to Work at the Workplace Subject to Litigation)
818/m.325
SUMMARY: The plaintiff has requested that it be decided whether he will receive compensation and wages. Fixed-term service contract is terminated prior to the time of the employee; balance within the period of working in another job, if you searching for a new job and the worker should be investigated whether deliberately has renounced and obtaining revenues arising from lack of work in the workplace in the case of savings are worth considering what the balance of the contract period to be calculated with a discount from the fee should be made.
LAWSUIT : The plaintiff has requested that it be decided whether he will receive compensation and wages.
The local court partially ruled on the request. The case was appealed by the plaintiff’s lawyer and the defendant during the sentencing period, but the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
DECISION : 1-According to the evidence collected in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals and the plaintiff’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not in place with all the appeals of the defendant.
2-The plaintiff employee worked as a workplace physician and was terminated by the employer before the expiration of a fixed-term employment contract for no justifiable reason. The balance period fees were calculated by the expert according to the employment contracts prepared between the parties for work at two different workplaces, and the court decided on the partial acceptance of the request by going to a 70% discount in case of Decisiveness. The court has not investigated whether the plaintiff worked at another place of work during the balance period and, since the plaintiff is a doctor, whether he had any other income-generating activity during this period. Finally, if there are expenses that the plaintiff avoids making due to not working at the defendant’s place of work, these considerations should be determined by determining 325 of the Code of Obligations. according to the article, the conclusion should be reached by evaluating these amounts. The decision of the court with incomplete examination was erroneous and required to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was decided unanimously on 25.10.2005 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
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.