Supreme Court Annual Leave Decision | NTV

The employee, who requested annual leave from his workplace for four years to attend his brother-in-law’s wedding, verbally informed the employer’s representative of this request and went on leave. The absenteeism report was kept for 3 consecutive days on the worker who returned to the workplace and was fired without compensation.


The victim worker, who knocked on the door of the Labor Court, said that he attended the wedding of his relative with his permission. He stated that he had worked as a logistics manager for 4 years and that his brother-in-law wanted to use part of his annual leave due to the wedding ceremony with the employer two months ago, both verbally and in writing.


Explaining that he was fired from his workplace after the end of his annual leave, the plaintiff demanded that he be paid less overtime pay during the period he worked, and requested the payment of severance pay and notice and accounts receivable for official holidays.

The defendant employer stated that the plaintiff’s employment contract was terminated for unjustified absenteeism, that the work system in the company was arranged in such a way that it did not exceed the weekly work period, so no more work was done in the company. The court decided to accept the case partially. When the defendant employer appealed the decision, the Ninth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals intervened.

In the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the norm of the Labor Law numbered 4857 ‘that the employer has the right to dismiss the employer in case the employee does not continue working for two consecutive working days or twice a month without obtaining employer’s leave or for three working days in a month Attention has been drawn to the provision.


The decision, in which it was emphasized that the plaintiff worker alleged that he received annual leave, included the following statements:

“The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff did not go to the workplace for a week upon obtaining written and verbal permission from the employer due to his relative’s wedding, and the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had been absent for 3 consecutive days, not declaring a good excuse, and that your employment contract was terminated for just cause. There are minutes of absenteeism on the plaintiff on file. If there is a justified reason to prevent the plaintiff from coming to work, the defendant must present a nondescript document to the defendant company within 3 days, otherwise, if it is understood that he does not come to work with an acceptable excuse, the contract must be submitted without prior notice in accordance with article 25 / ii (g) of the Labor Law and it will be terminated without compensation.

In his response to the defendant’s warning, the plaintiff stated that his relative went to the wedding on the specified dates and that he had notified the employer of this matter before, started work after the wedding, and was fired with severe insults and curses. Given this, it was understood that with the warning letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff, it was stated that the plaintiff’s claims were not true and that the employment contract was terminated due to absence. Although the plaintiff claimed that he received permission from the employer for the dates specified as absenteeism, there is no document in the record that shows that the plaintiff received permission from the employer.

Furthermore, the plaintiff’s witnesses did not make a statement in support of the plaintiff’s claims. With this state of affairs, it is confirmed that the plaintiff is absent, and since the employer’s dismissal is based on a just cause, it is incorrect to decide on the acceptance of compensation and notice when it should be rejected. It was unanimously decided to annul the court’s verdict. “


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *