T.C JUDGMENT
22nd Civil Chamber
Main: 2017/ 24904
Decision: 2019 / 21234
Decision Date: 14.11.2019
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
COURT:Labour Court
CASE TYPE: CLAIM
The appeal of the decision given as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the attorneys of the parties, and it was understood that the appeal requests were in due time. After listening to the report prepared by the Examining Judge … for the case file, the file was examined and the necessity was discussed and considered:
Y A R G I T A Y DECISION
Summary of the Claimant’s Request:
The plaintiff’s attorney stated that since the beginning of 2007, he has been working uninterruptedly at the defendant company’s workplace under subcontractor companies, his employment contract was terminated without notice, the last subcontractor company … Ltd. Şti., the last subcontractor company, that his compensation would be paid but no payment was made, that his client worked overtime because he had to work until the electrical faults were fixed, that he was not paid overtime wages despite working overtime, that his annual leaves were not fully used and the corresponding wages were not paid, that the defendant company, which is the main employer, is also responsible for his client’s labour receivables, and filed a lawsuit and demanded a decision to collect severance pay and other labour receivables from the defendant company.
Summary of Defendant’s Response:
The defendant company attorney defended the rejection of the lawsuit.
Summary of the Court Decision:
The court decided to partially accept the lawsuit based on the collected evidence and expert report.
Appeal:
The decision was appealed by the attorneys of the parties.
Grounds:
1-According to the writings in the file, the evidence collected and the legal grounds on which the decision is based, all of the defendant’s and the plaintiff’s appellate objections other than the following paragraph are not relevant.
2-There is a dispute between the parties regarding the attorney fee awarded in favour of the defendant. The court partially accepted the case and awarded 1.800,00 TL attorney fee in favour of the defendant … Dağtım Anonim Şirketi. However, according to paragraph 2 of Article 13 of the Attorney Minimum Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision, it is seen that the amount rejected for the defendant … Dağtım Anonim Şirketi in the concrete case is 50,00 TL, considering that the fee awarded by the court cannot exceed the amount accepted or rejected. Although this situation is a reason for reversal, however, since this issue does not require a retrial, it is deemed appropriate to approve the judgement by correcting it as stated below in accordance with Article 438/7 of the abrogated Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, which continues to be applied in accordance with the provisional Article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100.
CONCLUSION: Paragraph 11 of the judgement subject to appeal, which reads “To collect the attorney’s fee of 1.800,00 TL from the plaintiff and to give it to the defendant according to the Attorney’s Minimum Fee Tariff in force on the date of the judgement. It was unanimously decided on 14.11.2019 to remove the subparagraph 11 from the judgment and replace it with the numbers and words “To collect the attorney’s fee of 50,00 TL from the plaintiff and to award it to the defendant according to the Attorneys’ Minimum Fee Tariff in force on the date of the decision”, to confirm the decision as amended, to return the prepaid appeal fee to the plaintiff upon request, and to charge the following appeal expenses to the defendant from the appellants.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking