22. law office
Main: 2017/ 24904
The verdict: 2019/21234
Decision Date: 14.11.2019
JUDICIAL DECISION
COURT: Employment Tribunal
CASE TYPE: CLAIM
The appeal of the decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the lawyers of the parties and it was understood that the Decrees of the appeal were in the period. After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Magistrate for the case file, the file was examined and its necessity was discussed and evaluated:
THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
Summary of the Claimant’s Request:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that since the beginning of 2007, he has been working continuously at the workplace belonging to the defendant company depending on subcontractors, the employment contract was terminated without notice, the last subcontractor company, … Ltd. Şti. Şti.pay paid compensation, his client worked overtime due to having to work until the electrical faults were fixed, despite working overtime, he was not paid overtime pay, annual leave was not used, he reported. Stating that the defendant company, which is the main employer, is also responsible for the labor receivables of its client, it filed a lawsuit and demanded that a decision be made to collect severance pay and other labor receivables from the defendant company.
Summary of the Defendant’s Response:
The defendant company lawyer, on the other hand, argued for the dismissal of the case.
Summary of the Court Decision:
The court decided to partially accept the case based on the collected evidence and the expert report.
Attractive:
The decision was appealed by the lawyers of the parties.
REASON:
1-According to the articles in the file, the collected evidence and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, all of the defendant’s and plaintiff’s objections to the appeal other than the following paragraph are not valid.
2-There is a dispute between the parties regarding the attorney’s fee Decried in favor of the defendant. The court partially accepted the case and ruled for a lawyer’s fee of 1.800,00 TL in favor of the defendant Dagdim Anonim Şirketi. However, according to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Minimum Wage Tariff for Lawyers, which was in force on the date of the decision, the defendant… It is seen that the amount rejected in the concrete case on behalf of Distribution Joint Stock Company is 50,00 TL when the fee is taken into account.
The amount ordered by the court may not exceed the accepted or rejected amount. Although this situation is the reason for the violation, since this issue does not require a retrial, it has been deemed appropriate to correct and approve the judgment in accordance with Article 438/7 of the abrogated Code of Civil Procedure No. 6698 in the manner indicated below. The Law No. 1086, which continues to be applied in accordance with the provisional Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Law No. 6100.
CONCLUSION:
The decision on the subject of the appeal is 11. the phrase “attorney fee in the amount of 1.800,00 TL will be collected from the plaintiff and given to the defendant in accordance with the Minimum Attorney Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision, ” contained in the paragraph, will be deleted from the decision and replaced with the following statement. Paid paid Attorney Fee in the amount of 50,00 TL to the defendant at the rate of the Minimum Attorney Fee was unanimously decided on 14.11.2019 instead of subtracting paragraph 11 of the decision “Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision”, confirming the decision as amended, the appeal fee paid in advance is returned to the plaintiff upon request and the following appeal costs are collected from the appellants to the defendant.
You can reach our other article samples and petition samples by clicking here.