T.C.
Supreme
9. law office
Main Number: 2014/14603
Decision No: 2015/30987
K. Date:3.11.2015
The plaintiff requested that it be decided to pay the leave fee.
The local court has decided to partially accept the case.
Although the defendant was appealed by his lawyer during the sentencing period, the report prepared by the Examination Judge for the case file was examined after the hearing, the file was discussed and considered as necessary:
SUPREME COURT DECISION
A) Summary of the Claimant’s Claim:
Plaintiff attorney petition, in summary, your client of the defendant University Press, a publishing house in 03.04.1990 started on 14.01.2013 continuously working till date, your client due to it being busy working life that does not use paid leave during citing; permit fee from the defendant is asked to decide on the collection.
B) Summary of the Respondent’s Response:
The defendant requested the dismissal of the case.
C) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
Based on the expert report and the evidence collected by the court, the defendant with the plaintiff’s 02.04.1990 14.01.2013 running continuously between dates in the workplace, the permissions by using an annual in our court suing the plaintiff’s work during the period of annual uses the permissions of the defendant with a written document that it should be proven by the employer, however, where any document is not submitted by the employer of this agreement, the defendant, the plaintiff permissions used within the working time of the annual partial acceptance, on the grounds that it could not be proven that the case was decided.
D) Appeal:
The defendant appealed the decision.
E) Justification:
1-According to the articles in the file, the evidence collected and the legally necessary 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- It is incorrect to calculate the SGK premium and unemployment insurance deductions that fall to the employee’s share during the conversion of the gross receivable to the net by the expert without taking into account.
3- In accordance with Article 56 / b of the law No. 2547, the court does not consider that the defendant university is exempt from tuition fees.
4- It is erroneous to think that not specifying whether the amounts ruled are net or gross will cause hesitation in execution, and it required distortion.
F) The result:
It was unanimously decided on 03.11.2015 that the appealed decision should be OVERTURNED due to the reasons written above.
You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.