Esas No:2021\/1943<\/strong> 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/1943 E. , 2021\/5739 K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n MAHKEMES\u0130<\/strong> : Ankara 9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\/1943Karar No:2021\/5739K. Tarihi: 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2021\/1943 E. , 2021\/5739 K. MAHKEMES\u0130 : Ankara 9. Hukuk Dairesi 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…<\/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\/10722"}],"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=10722"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10722\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10723,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10722\/revisions\/10723"}],"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=10722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.avrasyahukuk.com.tr\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Karar No:2021\/5739<\/strong>
K. Tarihi:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Davac\u0131 vekili davac\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131ya ait … Tersane Komutanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 Motor Fabrikas\u0131 i\u015fyerinde tesviyeci olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015fverence i\u015fe giri\u015finde hatal\u0131 intibak yap\u0131lsa da, 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda bu i\u015flemin d\u00fczeltilerek davac\u0131ya 4 derece verildi\u011fini ancak bu yeni derece ile olu\u015fan 2013 y\u0131l\u0131ndan geriye do\u011fru 5 y\u0131ll\u0131k fark \u00fccretlerin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek fark \u00fccret, ilave tediye ve ikramiye alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n tahsilini, istemi\u015ftir.
Daval\u0131 Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Daval\u0131 vekili, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n doldu\u011funu ve hak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcc\u00fc s\u00fcrelerin ge\u00e7irildi\u011fini, ge\u00e7mi\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fck \u00f6deme ile ilgili olarak sulh anla\u015fmas\u0131 yap\u0131lmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 21.02.2012 <\/strong>tarihinde sendika ile \u00fccret derecelerinin tespiti ile ilgili protokol imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fakat sulh s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzalanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7ilerin ge\u00e7mi\u015fe d\u00f6n\u00fck alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n 08.02.2013 <\/strong>tarihinde tespit edildi\u011finden 08.02.2018 <\/strong>y\u0131l\u0131nda zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, sendika taraf\u0131ndan zaman\u0131nda dava a\u00e7\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frayan bir alaca\u011f\u0131n talep edilmesinin d\u00fcr\u00fcstl\u00fck ve iyi niyet kurallar\u0131na ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011fu gibi hukuken de korunamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131, savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.
Mahkeme Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
Yerel Mahkemece, toplanan kan\u0131tlar ve bilirki\u015fi raporuna dayan\u0131larak, benzer davalardaki Yarg\u0131tay kararlar\u0131 g\u00f6zetildi\u011finde taleplerin zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011framad\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n fark \u00fccret, akdi ikramiye ve ilave tediye alacaklar\u0131 oldu\u011fu, gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne, karar verilmi\u015ftir.
\u0130stinaf:
Karara kar\u015f\u0131 daval\u0131 taraf\u00e7a istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurulmu\u015ftur.
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince, \u00f6zetle, daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n di\u011fer itirazlar\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmeyerek, ” ilave tediye alaca\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcnden temerr\u00fct dava a\u00e7\u0131lmakla olu\u015ftu\u011fundan ilave tediye alaca\u011f\u0131na dava ve \u0131slah tarihinden itibaren faiz i\u015fletilmesi gerekirken Mahkemece hatal\u0131 olarak faiz ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7 tarihleri belirlenmesi nedeniyle daval\u0131n\u0131n bu y\u00f6ne ili\u015fkin istinaf\u0131 yerindedir” \u015feklindeki gerek\u00e7eyle daval\u0131 ba\u015fvurusu k\u0131smen kabul edilerek \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131 kald\u0131r\u0131larak davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.
Temyiz:
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131 daval\u0131 vekili temyiz etmi\u015ftir.
Gerek\u00e7e:
1-Taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131na, dayand\u0131klar\u0131 belgelere, hukuki ili\u015fkinin nitelendirilmesine ve uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131 ile temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131nda yaz\u0131l\u0131 gerek\u00e7elere g\u00f6re, daval\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde de\u011fildir.
2- Mahkemece h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda davac\u0131 alacaklar\u0131 hesaplan\u0131rken, davac\u0131n\u0131n 14\/10\/2010 <\/strong>tarihinde tesfiyeci olarak 12 derecede iken 15\/10\/2010 <\/strong>tarihinde motorcu olarak terfi ettirilip derecesinin 16’ya y\u00fckseltildi\u011fi, ard\u0131ndan ayn\u0131 tarihte iki y\u0131ll\u0131k bekleme s\u00fcresi doldu\u011fundan normal terfi ile 1 derece eklenmek suretiyle derecinin 17’ye y\u00fckseltildi\u011fi, davac\u0131n\u0131n bu terfisinin motor kursunu tamamlamas\u0131 \u00fczerine meslek de\u011fi\u015fimi nedeniyle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, Toplu \u0130\u015f S\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde meslek ve g\u00f6rev de\u011fi\u015fikli\u011finde bir \u00fcst dereceye terfi \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, yine meslek ve g\u00f6rev de\u011fi\u015ftiren i\u015f\u00e7ilerin yeni terfi ile alacaklar\u0131 derecenin mesleki tecr\u00fcbesi olmayan ayn\u0131 derece e\u011fitime sahip i\u015f\u00e7inin i\u015fe ba\u015flama derecesinden az olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Yine ayn\u0131 raporda, davac\u0131n\u0131n 15\/10\/2010 <\/strong>tarihinde 1 de\u011fil 4 derece birden terfi ettrilerek 12 den 16 dereceye y\u00fckseltildi\u011fi, ard\u0131ndan 2 y\u0131ll\u0131k bekleme s\u00fcresi doldu\u011fundan normal terfi ile 1 derece daha y\u00fckseltilerek 17 dereceye \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu terfi i\u015flemi s\u0131ras\u0131nda bir nevi ilk giri\u015fteki derece hatas\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fczeltildi\u011fi zira davac\u0131n\u0131n teknik okul mezunlar\u0131n\u0131n i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131lma derecesi olan 13 de\u011fil 9 derece ile i\u015fe ba\u015flat\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, meslek de\u011fi\u015fimi nedeni ile yap\u0131lan terfide, davac\u0131 sanki 13 dereceden ba\u015flat\u0131lm\u0131\u015f gibi 2010 y\u0131l\u0131na kadar almas\u0131 gereken normal terfileri belirlenerek 15\/10\/2010 <\/strong>tarihinde 16’ya y\u00fckseltildi\u011fi, bu yap\u0131lan i\u015flem ile davaya konu ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta olu\u015fan 4 derece fark\u0131n\u0131n 1’e d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Bilirki\u015fice haz\u0131rlanan ilk raporda a\u00e7\u0131klanan duruma g\u00f6re davac\u0131 alacaklar\u0131 hesaplanm\u0131\u015f ise de davac\u0131 taraf\u0131n itirazlar\u0131 \u00fczerine ek raporda davac\u0131n\u0131n do\u011frudan t\u00fcm derecelerine 4 derece eklenerek alacaklar belirlenmi\u015f ve Mahkemece bu hesaba g\u00f6re h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmu\u015ftur.
Mahkemece, yukar\u0131da a\u00e7\u0131klanan bilirki\u015fi raporundaki saptamalar ve dosya i\u00e7inde bulunan daval\u0131 belgeleri dikkate al\u0131narak, 15\/10\/2010 <\/strong>tarihinde yap\u0131lan terfi i\u015flemi ile ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta olu\u015fan 4 derece fark\u0131n\u0131n 1’e d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fcl\u00fcp d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr\u00fclmedi\u011fi ve aksi kabul\u00fcn m\u00fckerrer derecelendirmeye yol a\u00e7\u0131p a\u00e7mad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmeden eksik inceleme ve ara\u015ft\u0131rma ile sonuca gidilmesi hatal\u0131 olup bozmay\u0131 gerektirmi\u015ftir.
Sonu\u00e7:
Temyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n, yukar\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 sebepten BOZULMASINA<\/strong>, dosyan\u0131n karar\u0131 veren B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine, 08\/03\/2021 <\/strong>tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"