Esas No:2021\/659<\/strong> 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/659 E. , 2021\/6195 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> :Asliye Hukuk (\u0130\u015f) Mahkemesi Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n\n\n\n Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti: T.C.Yarg\u0131tay9. Hukuk Dairesi Esas No:2021\/659Karar No:2021\/6195K. Tarihi: 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/659 E. , 2021\/6195 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 :Asliye Hukuk (\u0130\u015f) Mahkemesi Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz talebinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: Y A R G…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":10362,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[63],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10718"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10718"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10718\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10719,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10718\/revisions\/10719"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10362"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/6195<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Taraflar aras\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fclen dava sonucunda verilen karar\u0131n, temyizen incelenmesi daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan istenilmekle, temyiz talebinin s\u00fcresinde oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131. Dava dosyas\u0131 i\u00e7in Tetkik Hakimi taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fczenlenen rapor dinlendikten sonra dosya incelendi, gere\u011fi konu\u015fulup d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili, davac\u0131n\u0131n 15.06.1999-<\/strong>30.09.2013 <\/strong>tarihleri aras\u0131nda daval\u0131 \u015firketin i\u015fletme hakk\u0131n\u0131 y\u00fcklendi\u011fi …’teki … Hidroelektrik Santrali’nde 24 saat \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma, 48 saat dinlenme esas\u0131na g\u00f6re \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sigorta bildiriminin eksik yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n bazen iki \u00fc\u00e7 g\u00fcn \u00fcst \u00fcste n\u00f6bet tutarak fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, belirlenen plana uyulmas\u0131 halinde de davac\u0131n\u0131n haftal\u0131k 14 saat fazla mesai yapm\u0131\u015f oldu\u011funu, \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcre boyunca davac\u0131n\u0131n dini ve milli bayramlarda izin kullanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f akdi, ihbar yap\u0131lmaks\u0131z\u0131n 30.09.2013 <\/strong>tarihinde sonland\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 halde kuruma 24.09.2013 <\/strong>tarihinde son buldu\u011funun bildirildi\u011fini, bu durumun davac\u0131n\u0131n \u0130\u015f – Kur’a ba\u015fvurusunu engelledi\u011fini iddia ederek bir k\u0131s\u0131m i\u015f\u00e7ilik alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131lardan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Daval\u0131 vekili, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 definde bulunduklar\u0131n\u0131, davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava bi\u00e7iminde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n yasaya ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava yolu ile a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u0131demi bir y\u0131ldan az olan davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131na hak kazanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n haftal\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresinin \u00fczerinde bir \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle fazla mesai \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmaya ili\u015fkin iddias\u0131n\u0131n hayat\u0131n ola\u011fan ak\u0131\u015f\u0131na uymad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmede davac\u0131ya yemek \u00fccreti \u00f6denece\u011fine dair d\u00fczenleme bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle yemek \u00fccreti, davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan temin olunan ara\u00e7la i\u015f yerine gidip gelmesi nedeniyle yol \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n dini ve milli bayramlarda \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bulunmamas\u0131 nedeniyle bayram ve genel tatil \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcre boyunca haketti\u011fi t\u00fcm alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6dendi\u011fini savunarak davan\u0131n reddini talep etmi\u015ftir.
Mahkeme Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Mahkemece, toplanan kan\u0131tlar ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna dayan\u0131larak, davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne dair verilen karar Yarg\u0131tay (Kapat\u0131lan) 22. Hukuk Dairesi’nin 02\/10\/2019 tarih 2017\/25194 esas 2019\/17950 karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131 ile zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 itiraz\u0131n\u0131n dikkate al\u0131nmamas\u0131, \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esi ve ek bilirki\u015fi raporununu daval\u0131ya tebli\u011f edilmemesi nedeniyle savunma hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131s\u0131tlanmas\u0131, davan\u0131n k\u0131smi dava olmas\u0131 ve k\u0131smi davaya uygulanmas\u0131 gereken usul kurallar\u0131n\u0131n uygulanmas\u0131n\u0131n gerekti\u011fi gerek\u00e7eleri ile bozulmas\u0131na karar verilmi\u015f, bozma sonras\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama neticesinde Mahkemece davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Temyiz Ba\u015fvurusu :<\/strong>
Karar\u0131 yasal s\u00fcresi i\u00e7erisinde daval\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.
Gerek\u00e7e:
1-Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara toplanan delillerle karar\u0131n dayand\u0131\u011f\u0131 kanuni gerektirici sebeplere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131 vekilinin a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bentlerin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki temyiz itirazlar\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar vermek gerekmi\u015ftir.
2- Davac\u0131 y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti talebinde bulunmu\u015f, Mahkemece davac\u0131n\u0131n 244 g\u00fcn y\u0131ll\u0131k \u00fccretli izin alaca\u011f\u0131 olarak br\u00fct 8.258,20 TL<\/strong> h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ancak davac\u0131 30\/07\/2015 <\/strong>tarihli duru\u015fmada 14 y\u0131ll\u0131k hizmet s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde toplam be\u015f y\u0131l i\u00e7in y\u0131ll\u0131k izin kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 beyan ederek yemin etmi\u015f, ald\u0131r\u0131lan ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti 3.748,77 TL<\/strong> olarak hesaplanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Mahkemece gerek\u00e7eli karar i\u00e7eri\u011finde de davac\u0131n\u0131n ek bilirki\u015fi raporunda hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczere 3.748,77 TL<\/strong> y\u0131ll\u0131k izin \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu tespit edilmesine ra\u011fmen gerek\u00e7e ile h\u00fck\u00fcm aras\u0131nda \u00e7eli\u015fki olu\u015fturacak \u015fekilde davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k izin alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n br\u00fct 8.258,20 TL<\/strong> oldu\u011fu kabul edilerek h\u00fck\u00fcm alt\u0131na al\u0131nmas\u0131 hatal\u0131d\u0131r.
SONU\u00c7<\/strong>:
Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n\u0131n yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten dolay\u0131 BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz karar harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine 15\/03\/2021 <\/strong>tarihinde oy birli\u011fi ile karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"