Workers’ Claims Case Decision Of The Court Of Cassation
T.C. JUDICIARY
22nd Civil Chamber
Main: 2016/262
Decision: 2016/3937
Decision Date: 16.02.2016
WORKERS’ CLAIMS LAWSUIT – ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY APPEALED THE DECISION WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT, HE GAVE A STATEMENT THAT HE WAIVED THE APPEAL AND HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO WAIVE THE APPEAL FROM THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AVAILABLE IN THE FILE – DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL
SUMMARY: Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision in due time, since it is understood that he submitted a petition regarding the waiver of the appeal request and that he was authorized to waive the appeal from the power of attorney available in the file, it was decided to reject the appeal request of the plaintiff’s attorney and to refund the prepaid appeal fee to the plaintiff upon request.
(1475 S. K. art. 14) (4857 S. K. art. 41, 44, 47)
Case: The plaintiff requested a decision on the payment of severance pay, annual leave, overtime, national holiday and general holiday and week holiday wages.
The court partially ruled the request by complying with the reversal.
Since the judgment was appealed by the lawyers of the parties within the time limit, the file was examined, the file was examined and the necessity was discussed and considered after the report prepared by the Examining Judge for the case file was listened:
I-In terms of the plaintiff’s appeal;
Although the plaintiff’s attorney appealed the decision in due time, since it is understood that he submitted a petition regarding the waiver of the appeal request and that he is authorized to waive the appeal from the power of attorney available in the file, the appeal request of the plaintiff’s attorney is rejected in accordance with Article 432/4 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, and the prepaid appeal fee is returned to the plaintiff upon request,
II- In terms of the defendant’s appeal;
According to the writings in the file, the decision being in accordance with the reversal and there is no inaccuracy in the appreciation of the evidence, it was unanimously decided on 16.02.2016 to reject all the appellate objections, to approve the judgment which is in accordance with the procedure and law, and to charge the appellant with the appeal expenses written below.