9. Legal Department 2020/5182 E. , 2021/3314 K.
“Text Of Jurisprudence”
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS : … 7. law office
CASE TYPE : RECEIVABLE
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE : … West 2. Employment Tribunal
As a result of the case between the parties, it became clear that the decisionthe examination of the appeal was requested by the party’s deputies and was within the period of the appeal requests. After hearing the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
The Decision Of The Supreme Court
1-From the point of view of the plaintiff’s appeal;
Final decisions on cases of movable property and receivables, the amount and value of which does not exceed the limit of certainty of appeal, cannot be appealed in accordance with Article 362 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100. The limit of certainty concerns public order.
In a concrete dispute, with the partial acceptance of the case by the Court of First Instance, labor receivables totaling TL 86,857.49 were settled, and the District Court of Justice decided to reject the defendant’s appeal on the basis of the fact that the party’s deputies applied to the appeal law, and the decision was appealed by the parties.
In the face of these statements, it should be noted that the certainty limit is TL 72,070.00 as of the date of the District Court’s decision, the amount of the plaintiff’s reclamation petition and the amount he requested in total is TL 105,077.76, accordingly, the total rejected claim of the plaintiff is TL 18,220.27, since the amount under appeal remains within the certainty limit, 362 of the Civil Procedure Code No. 6100 REFUSAL of the claimant’s attorney’s request for appeal in accordance with Article 6,
2-From the point of view of the defendant’s appeal;
1-According to the evidence collected from the articles in the file and the legal reasons on which the decision is based, the defendant’s appeals that fall outside the scope of the following paragraph are not in place.
1-There is a dispute between the parties as to whether the plaintiff is working overtime or dec.
In the concrete case, the plaintiff, who worked at the defendant bank between 05 dec11.1996 and 04 dec05.2016, served as the branch manager of Akbank Organized Industrial Zone between 16.04.2015 and 04.05.2016. Expert witness statements in the report based on the provision by the tribunal of first instance, according to the plaintiff’s account was made to work overtime fees that will take, although the content of the file based on the plaintiff’s branch manager is where Akbank organized industrial zone due to his tenure as the top-level in his capacity as an administrator to have worked jurisdiction in accordance with the work order was in a position to identify itself although it appears that he worked as a branch manager 16.04.2015-04.05.2016 operating costs for the period between the dates when the decision should be made a denial of the request for, the decision to the contrary was erroneous and required to be overturned.
Result:
The participation of the Regional Justice Appeal Court’s decision is disrupted for some reason written above, and to eliminate the file the decision of the court of First Instance to be sent to an instance of reversal to be sent to the Regional Justice Court who made the decision, appeal the decision to the interested parties upon request in advance the return fee is retrieved, it was decided unanimously on 03/02/2021.