EN SUPREME COURT 9. Law Firm Basis: 2016/ 34036 Decision: 2020 / 2430 Decision Date: 18.02.2020
SUMMARY: When considering the plaintiff’s notice of default and the claims subject to notice of default, the start dates of the interest to be accrued for claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly, while the default notice was ignored and the payment of interest according to the dates of litigation and reclamation was erroneous and required cancellation.
(1475 SK Md. 14)
At the end of the trial of the case between the parties, an appeal of the judgment was requested by the lawyers of the parties upon the request of the lawyers of the parties to examine the amount accrued for the reasons written in the communique and the interest during the period of the voluntary Decrees of the appeal for examination. On the day of the hearing, the Lawyer on behalf of the defendant … and the Lawyer on behalf of the opposing party … arrived. After hearing the oral statements of the lawyers present at the start of the trial, the hearing was terminated, the report prepared by the Investigating Judge was presented, the file was examined and the need was discussed:
JUDICIAL DECISION
A) Summary of the Claimant’s Request:
The employment contract was terminated due to the fact that the plaintiff, the defendant, was working as a domestic truck driver at the workplace, carried retirement conditions except for age.
Claiming that he terminated the employment contract for a justified reason, he demanded severance pay and fuel deduction, weekly vacation, some monthly fees, overtime, weekly vacation, annual leave, national holiday and general holiday fees, and the return of the letter of guarantee he received from the employer.
B) Summary of the Respondent’s Reply:
The defendant’s attorney stated that the plaintiff worked as a domestic truck driver with minimum wage between 12.07.2006-02.10.2013, and did not continue to work without an excuse on Dec.19-20-21.09.2013,
Claiming that his client terminated the contract for a justified reason, that the plaintiff, born in 1972 and just 41 years old, was trying to unfairly obtain severance pay by abusing the right granted to him by Law No. 1475, and that his demands were unfair, he requested the dismissal of the case.
C) Summary of the Local Court Decision:
Taking into account the evidence collected and the expert report, the Court decided that the plaintiff left the workplace on petition dated 25.10.2010 and was entitled to severance pay due to carrying fifteen years of insurance and 3600 days of premium payment days in accordance with paragraph one of paragraph (5) of Law No. 1475. It was decided to partially accept the case on the grounds that his other claims, such as overwork, annual leave, week holidays and general holiday pay, were not in place.
D) Objection:
The lawyers of the parties appealed against the decision.
E) Why:
1- Taking into account the evidence obtained from the articles in the file and the legally compelling reasons on which the decision is based, it has been understood that the parties’ appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraphs are not appropriate.
2- No positive or negative decision is made in the judgment part of the decision regarding the request for cancellation of the letter of guarantee received by the plaintiff when starting work in the petition of the CCP. 297/2. it is contrary to the article. According to the aforementioned provision of the Law, a clear and definitive provision should be made on all claims subject to the case.
3- When considering the plaintiff’s notice of default and the claims subject to notice of default, the start dates of the interest to be applied for claims other than severance pay should be determined accordingly, while ignoring the notice of default and ruling on the interest based on the date of litigation and correction was also erroneous and required overturning.
F) The result:
It was found that the decision appealed for the reasons written above was OVER-FINED, and TL 2,540.00 was assessed in favor of the defendant. It was decided unanimously on 18/02/2020 that the trial attorney fee should be charged to the plaintiff and the appeal fee paid in advance should be returned to the relevant party upon request. (¤¤)</b