TC SUPREME
law firm
File No.: 2007/14430 Decision
No.: 2008/8214
Decision Date: 04/11/2008
EMPLOYEE CLAIMS CASE – PLAINTIFF’S SPOUSE’S JOB, MARRIED TO THIS PERSON
I CAME TO THIS CITY BY GETTING MARRIED BECAUSE I WAS LIVING IN ANOTHER PROVINCE
THE REASON FOR THE PROVINCE CHANGE IS MARRIAGE
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S SENIORITY INDEMNITY CLAIM
SUMMARY: The plaintiff stated that she moved to this city after getting married because her spouse’s job was in another province.
In this case, the reason for the change of province is marriage. In such cases,
the plaintiff’s seniority indemnity claim should be accepted.
(1475 PK m. 14)
Case:
The plaintiff requested a decision on the payment of severance pay.
The local court dismissed the case.
Upon the objection made by the plaintiff’s lawyer within the decision period, the file was reviewed
After hearing the report prepared by Judge Y. Tekbaş, the necessary examinations were conducted, and
the following decision was rendered:
Decision:
There is no dispute that the plaintiff woman married on 08/02/2003 and stated in the petition she submitted to the employer on 08/21/2003 that
she left her job due to a change of province.
The reason for the court’s rejection of the plaintiff’s severance pay claim is that the letter did not cite
marriage as the reason for resignation.
According to Article 1, Paragraph 1 of Labor Law No. 1475,
if a woman terminates her contract of her own accord within one year of her marriage, severance pay shall be paid.
As a concrete example, the plaintiff stated that she married because her spouse’s job was in another province and that she moved to that city.
This situation is also a reason for changing provinces due to marriage.
Furthermore, no other reason for the change and termination has been put forward.
According to the established case law of our department, the reason for termination can be explained in the petition and
the existence of the reason is determined by the court.
In this case, it is incorrect to issue a written ruling instead of accepting the plaintiff’s claim for severance pay
.
Conclusion: If the contested decision is REVERSED for the reasons stated above,
the appeal fee previously paid shall be refunded upon request, and its refund to the relevant person was unanimously decided on April 11, 2008.