Employee Receivables – The Subject of Litigation Receivables, And the Calculation of Compensations Does Not Require Expertise

T.C. SUPREME COURT 22. Legal Department Main Number: 2018/6283
Decision No:2018/10735
Decision Date: 04.05.2018
EMPLOYEE RECEIVABLES CASE – THE SUBJECT OF THE CASE IS COMPENSATION AND
TECHNICAL AND EXPERTISE OF THE CALCULATION OF RECEIVABLES
DOES NOT REQUIRE – ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF EVIDENCE – OF THE CASE
SINCE IT CANNOT BE PROVED, THE INACCURACY OF THE WAGER REJECTION –
WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BROKEN

SUMMARY: In the concrete case, the expert fee requested to be stored by the court is not directly related to the proof of the claim related to the case subject to dispute, so the period given is not duly and definitively.
Moreover, an expert cannot be listened to on issues that can be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the judicial profession. The calculation of the compensation and receivables subject to the lawsuit also does not require technical and expertise. All of the file scope of the claims in the case, the plaintiff defendant plaintiff listened to the last work witness statements by the company are considered together with their claims to a portion of the case when both of which proves that according to the understanding, the case is incorrect and denial-of-a bet that it could not be proven decision has required to break it.
(1475 P. K. m. 14) (4857 Pp. K. m. 17, 41, 46, 47, 57) (6100 P . K. m. 324) (1086 Pp. K. m. 427)
Lawsuit: The decision made as a result of the lawsuit between the parties was requested by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation to be overturned in the interest of the law, the Examination Judge M. Decker for the case file. After listening to the report organized by Hacıoğlu, the file was examined, discussed and considered as necessary:
Decision: Summary of the Plaintiff’s Claim:
The plaintiff’s attorney is the employer who transferred his client’s non-litigation between Dec. 01.05.1999-31.05.2011 I. A. the respondent’s construction manager and working as a machine operator with the transferee company and business, the employer has been terminated without just cause he indicated defendant of an employment contract, severance pay, notice pay, weekend work, overtime claims, annual leave and public holidays the collection of receivables from the defendant required.
Summary of the Respondent’s Response:
The defendant has not responded to the lawsuit.
Summary of the Court Decision:
The court has decided to dismiss the case.
Appeal:
Karan has appealed to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation for the reversal in the interest of the law.

Reason:
324 of the Law No. 6100. according to the article “advance payment for the substitution of evidence”, each of the parties is obliged to deposit the advance payment determined by the court for the evidence it requests for substitution within the specified time limit. If the parties have requested the substitution of the same evidence together, they shall pay the required expense in half as an advance (f,1). If one of the parties does not fulfill the advance obligation, the other party may deposit this advance. Otherwise, he is deemed to have abandoned the substitution of the requested evidence (f. 2). First of all, it should be noted that in order for it to be mentioned that the case has not been proven due to the fact that the evidence substitution was not deposited during the advance period, first of all, this evidence must be directly related to the proof of the claim related to the case in dispute. In this case, it may be the case that the case cannot be proved because the plaintiff is considered to have abandoned the evidence that he did not pay his expenses. So to speak, the proof of that case should not be possible without that evidence, when the party is deemed to have given up the evidence because it has not deposited the evidence advance, that case should remain completely unproven so that a decision can be made in this direction. In this context, as is known to everyone, in practice, if the expert report received by the judge due to the sheer intensity of the work is not directly related to the proof of the case, it would not be correct to dismiss the case on the grounds that the expert fee has not been paid and cannot be proved.
According to the file content; dated 14.04.2016 hearing to the plaintiff’s attorney, “…the path of the file sent to the court in Bursa with instruction in business correspondence, our job is to file with the depositary of a qualified expert in the field of law to report the number of the party for more than one Expert 300.00 fee corresponding to the shift of Labor and at the discretion of the hearing by counsel for the plaintiff missing 150.00 expert witness fees within a certain period of 1 Week from the date of settlement to be the repository of the window, within a certain period specified, expert witness fees, court failure to withstand the plaintiff to the cashier’s Office Depot yanc deemed to have waived the right to the examination of the file and the existing evidence evidence in the trial will be evaluated according to the state of the plaintiff’s attorney to notice,(Dunning were)…” it’s been decided. Although TL 150.00 was deposited by the plaintiff on 04.05.2016, the court decided that at the hearing dated 17.05.2016; as it is seen that the expert’s expenses were not paid within the exact time limit, an interim decision was made to waive subparagraph 2, b of the last session and Decisively rejected the case because it did not prove it. In the concrete case, the expert fee requested to be stored by the court is not directly related to the proof of the claim related to the case in dispute, as explained above, so the period given is not appropriate and precise. Moreover, an expert cannot be listened to on issues that can be resolved with the general and legal knowledge required by the judicial profession. The calculation of the compensation and receivables subject to the lawsuit also does not require technical and expertise. All of the file scope of the claims in the case, the plaintiff defendant plaintiff listened to the last work witness statements by the company are considered together with their claims to a portion of the case when both of which proves that according to the understanding, the case is incorrect and denial-of-a bet that it could not be proven decision has required to break it.
Conclusion: Provisional 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure No. 6100 of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Cassation. article 427/6 of the abrogated Code of Civil Procedure No. 1086, which continues to be applied in accordance with. it was decided unanimously on 04.05.2018 that the decision of the Court of Cassation to OVERTURN the decision in order not to be effective on the result, and the file was deposited with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office for the reason explained by the acceptance of the request to appeal in the interest of the law based on the article.

You can read our articles and petition examples by clicking here.