10th Law Office
Case Number: 2020/2378
Decision Number: 2020/5230
“Text of Justice”
Court: Labor Court
The case concerns a request for service determination.
The court accepted the case for the reasons stated in its decision.
Upon the defendant institution’s lawyer’s appeal against the decision, the appeal request was made within the time limit, and after reviewing the report prepared by the Investigating Judge and the documents in the file, the necessity of the work was assessed, and the following decision was made. The plaintiff’s lawyer requested that the periods between October 20, 2004, and June 6, 2008, be determined and that a retroactive service record be made with the Social Security Institution, and the court accepted the case in accordance with the requests of the defendants … and …:
70 days between October 10, 2004, and December 31, 2004; 160 days between January 1, 2005, and June 10, 2005; 91 days between September 12, 2005, and December 13, 2005; 15 days between January 1, 2006, and January 15, 2006; additionally, from the defendants… 48 days between May 1, 2006 and June 19, 2006, 27 days between September 18, 2006 and October 15, 2006, 134 days between January 1, 2007 and September 17, 2007, 06/2007; 134 days between 17/09/2007 and 31/12/2007; and 30 days between 01/01/2008 and 31/01/2008; Although the lawsuit filed against the defendant …
Cleaning and Construction Services Limited Company was dismissed, the Court noted that the start and end dates of the academic periods were taken into account in calculating the acceptance period, but that these points were valid, however, in calculating the working period of the workplace belonging to the … company,
Although the mid-term break for the 2007/2008 academic year began on January 28, 2018, the Court considers that the decision to determine a 30-day service period between January 1, 2008, and January 31, 2008, is contrary to procedure and law and constitutes a violation.
Since rectifying this matter does not require a retrial, the decision should not be revoked but should be corrected and approved in accordance with Article 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure (pursuant to the third transitional article of the Code of Civil Procedure).
CONCLUSION: The phrase “30 days between January 1, 2008, and January 31, 2008” in Article 1 of the judgment is deleted and replaced with: “January 1, 2008 – 27.01.2008” and the ruling was amended and approved as is on 30.09.2020 by unanimous decision.