T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2022\/16732 E., 2023\/110 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
\u0130NCELENEN KARARIN
\nMAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesi
\nSAYISI : 2020\/599 E., 2022\/1747 K.<\/p>\n
DAVA TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 27.12.2017
\nKARAR : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddi
\n\u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 : … 5. … Mahkemesi
\nSAYISI : 2017\/1286 E., 2019\/1103 K.<\/p>\n
Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Karar\u0131n taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurular\u0131n esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekilince temyiz incelemesinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n istenilmesi \u00fczerine, i\u015fin duru\u015fmaya t\u00e2bi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve duru\u015fma i\u00e7in 10.01.2023 Sal\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin edilerek taraflara tebligat g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc davac\u0131 vekili Avukat … ve davac\u0131 as\u0131l ile daval\u0131 vekili Avukat \u0130rem Dilek geldiler.<\/p>\n
Duru\u015fmaya ba\u015flanarak haz\u0131r bulunan avukatlar\u0131n s\u00f6zl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendikten sonra duru\u015fmaya son verildi.<\/p>\n
Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc:<\/p>\n
I. DAVA
\nDavac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131 b\u00fcnyesinde 13.03.1995-09.05.2017 tarihleri aras\u0131nda idari m\u00fcd\u00fcr olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hakl\u0131 neden olmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshedildi\u011fini, … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshedilece\u011fi hususunun Y\u00f6netim Kurulunda g\u00fcndeme gelmeden bir y\u0131l \u00f6nce Oda ba\u015fkan\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan stajyer ve \u00fcyelerle payla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu durumun daval\u0131 taraf\u0131n m\u00fcvekkiline kar\u015f\u0131 iyiniyetli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini, taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan 01.02.2007 ve 01.01.2013 tarihli belirsiz s\u00fcreli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerinin \u00f6zel \u015fartlar ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 bendinde; i\u015fverenin i\u015f\u00e7iye emeklili\u011finde ya da herhangi bir nedenle … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine son verildi\u011finde \u00f6denecek k\u0131dem ve ihbar tazminat\u0131n\u0131, i\u015f\u00e7inin en son ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 br\u00fct \u00fccret \u00fczerinden hesaplayarak on g\u00fcn i\u00e7inde \u00f6deyece\u011fi h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn bulundu\u011funu, bu h\u00fck\u00fcm gere\u011fi k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131n\u0131n tavan g\u00f6zetilmeksizin hesaplanmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini, 01.02.2007 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde bulunan y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence \u00fccreti d\u00fczenlemesinin 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde yer almasa da kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair herhangi bir h\u00fckm\u00fcn de bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, y\u0131ll\u0131k izin haklar\u0131n\u0131n kulland\u0131r\u0131lmamas\u0131 nedeniyle haziran ay\u0131 ikramiyesinin \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini, 2011 y\u0131l\u0131ndan itibaren erzak, giyim, yakacak yard\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n ve fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, 01.02.2007 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinden kaynaklanan \u00fccret zam fark\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmedi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 fark\u0131, y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence tazminat\u0131, k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131, 2017 y\u0131l\u0131 Haziran ay\u0131 ikramiyesi, sosyal yard\u0131m alaca\u011f\u0131, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti, \u00fccret zamm\u0131 fark\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n daval\u0131dan tahsiline karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
II. CEVAP
\nDaval\u0131 vekili cevap dilek\u00e7esinde; davac\u0131n\u0131n, 13.02.2005-09.05.2017 tarihleri aras\u0131nda idari m\u00fcd\u00fcr pozisyonunda i\u015fveren vekili olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, talep edilen alacaklar\u0131n zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131na u\u011frad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 01.02.2007 ve 01.01.2013 tarihli olmak \u00fczere iki adet … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi imzaland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerin \u00fccreti d\u00fczenleyen maddelerinde fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin ayl\u0131k \u00fccrete d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funun ifade edildi\u011fini, i\u015fveren vekili olmas\u0131 nedeniyle fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapmas\u0131n\u0131n m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, daval\u0131n\u0131n giderlerinin gelirlerine g\u00f6re ayarlanmas\u0131 kapsam\u0131nda tedbirler ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu do\u011frultuda Y\u00f6netim Kurulunda personel azalt\u0131lmas\u0131na gidilmesine ve \u00f6ncelikle emeklili\u011fe hak kazanm\u0131\u015f personellerin i\u015ften \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131na karar verildi\u011fini, yap\u0131lan feshin k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetle yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fcn\u00fcn m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, fesih nedeninin tamamen ekonomik sebepler oldu\u011funu, y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence tazminat\u0131n\u0131n 2013 y\u0131l\u0131nda imzalanan … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, ayl\u0131k \u00fccretlerinin tam olarak \u00f6dendi\u011fini savunarak davan\u0131n reddini istemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
III. \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 KARARI
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131yla; davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresinde ihtilaf olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 tavan\u0131n\u0131n emredici \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlendi\u011fini, i\u015f\u00e7i yarar\u0131na da olsa tavan\u0131 art\u0131ran ya da t\u00fcm\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131ran s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, bu nedenle davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 fark\u0131 alaca\u011f\u0131 talebinin reddedildi\u011fini, … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi gere\u011fi davac\u0131ya y\u0131lda 3 kez tam \u00fccreti tutar\u0131nda ikramiye \u00f6denmesi gerekti\u011fini, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresine g\u00f6re k\u0131stelyevm esas\u0131 ile ikramiye alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n hesapland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131 talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden soyut tan\u0131k beyanlar\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda delil bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, dava konusu erzak, giyim ve yakacak yard\u0131m\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n taraflarca imzalanan 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile yol ve \u00e7ocuk yard\u0131m\u0131 alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, 01.02.2007 ve 01.01.2013 tarihli s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerde kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan \u00fccret zamm\u0131 d\u00fczenlemeleri uyar\u0131nca davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denen \u00fccreti ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerle belirlenen zam oranlar\u0131na g\u00f6re olmas\u0131 gereken \u00fccreti aras\u0131nda fark bulundu\u011funu, 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle y\u0131ll\u0131k 270 saate kadar yap\u0131lacak fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan \u00fccretin ayl\u0131k \u00fccrete d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funun kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131; ancak davac\u0131n\u0131n y\u0131ll\u0131k 270 saati a\u015fan fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 bulundu\u011funun ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esiyle davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
IV. \u0130ST\u0130NAF
\nA. \u0130stinaf Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\n\u0130lk Derece Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde taraf vekilleri istinaf ba\u015fvurusunda bulunmu\u015flard\u0131r.<\/p>\n
B. \u0130stinaf Sebepleri
\n1. Davac\u0131 vekili; \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 fark\u0131 talebinin reddinin hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 oldu\u011funu, 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 01.02.2007 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin eki niteli\u011finde oldu\u011funu, ilk s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ili\u015fkin herhangi bir h\u00fck\u00fcm i\u00e7ermedi\u011fini, ayr\u0131ca birinci s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerine g\u00f6re \u00fccret zamm\u0131 farklar\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131 fakat y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence \u00fccretinin hesaplanmamas\u0131n\u0131n \u00e7eli\u015fkili oldu\u011funu, m\u00fcvekkilin … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin feshinin ekonomik sebeplere dayanmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, k\u00f6t\u00fcniyetle yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f bir fesih oldu\u011funu, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmesinin hatal\u0131 oldu\u011funu, davan\u0131n yasal s\u00fcrede a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131 h\u00e2linde ge\u00e7mi\u015f t\u00fcm alacaklar\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlu oldu\u011funu, son duru\u015fmada dosyan\u0131n yeni bir bilirki\u015fiye verilmesi taleplerinin reddedilerek \u0131slah imk\u00e2n\u0131 dahi tan\u0131nmadan eksik \u00fccret zamm\u0131na h\u00fckmedildi\u011fini belirterek \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesi istemi ile istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
2. Daval\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131 lehine ikramiye alaca\u011f\u0131 ve \u00fccret zamm\u0131 fark\u0131 alaca\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesinin isabetsiz oldu\u011funu belirterek \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 ve davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesi istemi ile istinaf yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e ve Sonu\u00e7
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da tarih ve say\u0131s\u0131 belirtilen karar\u0131yla; k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 fark\u0131 talebi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 tavan\u0131n\u0131n kanunda emredici \u015fekilde d\u00fczenlendi\u011fi, i\u015f\u00e7i yarar\u0131na da olsa tavan\u0131 art\u0131ran ya da t\u00fcm\u00fcyle ortadan kald\u0131ran s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ge\u00e7erli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, 01.02.2007 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde fesih h\u00e2linde davac\u0131ya y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence \u00fccreti \u00f6denece\u011fine ili\u015fkin d\u00fczenlemenin 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131n\u0131n yeni bir … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesiyle … \u015fartlar\u0131n\u0131n de\u011fi\u015ftirilmesini kabul etti\u011finden y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence \u00fccretinin reddinde isabetsizlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131; erzak, giyim ve yakacak yard\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n da 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi ile kald\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131, zamana\u015f\u0131m\u0131 def’i nedeniyle 2013 y\u0131l\u0131 \u00f6ncesi sosyal yard\u0131m hesaplanamayaca\u011f\u0131, davac\u0131 taraf\u00e7a fesih hakk\u0131n\u0131n k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullan\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 hususunun ispatlanamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinin yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesine g\u00f6re y\u0131ll\u0131k 270 saate kadar yap\u0131lacak fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olan \u00fccretin ayl\u0131k \u00fccrete d\u00e2hil oldu\u011fu kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015fsa da ayl\u0131k \u00fccret miktar\u0131 an\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmede yer almad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bu h\u00fckm\u00fcn ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ispat edemedi\u011fi, ikramiye alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ise bulundu\u011fu, davac\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denen \u00fccreti ile s\u00f6zle\u015fmelerle belirlenen zam oranlar\u0131na g\u00f6re olmas\u0131 gereken \u00fccreti aras\u0131nda fark bulundu\u011fu, bu sebeple \u00fccret fark\u0131 alaca\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmedilmesinde isabetsizlik olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile taraf vekillerinin istinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
V. TEMY\u0130Z
\nA. Temyiz Yoluna Ba\u015fvuranlar
\nB\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesinin yukar\u0131da belirtilen karar\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131 s\u00fcresi i\u00e7inde davac\u0131 vekili temyiz isteminde bulunmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
B. Temyiz Sebepleri
\nDavac\u0131 vekili; istinaf dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen gerek\u00e7eleri tekrar ederek B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n bozularak ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 istemi ile temyiz yoluna ba\u015fvurmu\u015ftur.<\/p>\n
C. Gerek\u00e7e:
\n1. Uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k ve Hukuki Nitelendirme
\nUyu\u015fmazl\u0131k; \u00fccret, y\u00f6netici g\u00fcvence \u00fccreti, k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 fark\u0131, k\u00f6t\u00fcniyet tazminat\u0131 ko\u015fullar\u0131n\u0131n bulunup bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131, fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccreti alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n hesaplanmas\u0131 ve davada k\u0131smi \u0131slah i\u00e7in s\u00fcre verilmemesi noktalar\u0131nda toplanmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
2. \u0130lgili Hukuk
\n1.6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu’nun (6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 369 uncu maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 ile 370 ve 371 inci maddeleri.<\/p>\n
2. 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 176 ila 181 inci maddeleri.<\/p>\n
3. 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu’nun (4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun) 17, 22 ve 32 nci maddeleri ile 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 120 nci maddesi h\u00fckm\u00fc atf\u0131yla m\u00fclga 1475 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu’nun h\u00e2len y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckte olan 14 \u00fcnc\u00fc maddesi.<\/p>\n
3. De\u011ferlendirme
\n1.B\u00f6lge adliye mahkemelerinin nihai kararlar\u0131n\u0131n bozulmas\u0131 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 371 inci maddesinde yer alan sebeplerden birinin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 h\u00e2linde m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n
2. S\u00f6zle\u015fme \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc kural\u0131 uyar\u0131nca yasal s\u0131n\u0131rlar i\u00e7inde kalan fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin ayl\u0131k \u00fccretin i\u00e7inde oldu\u011funa dair s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmleri kural olarak ge\u00e7erlidir. Dairemiz; yerle\u015fik h\u00e2le gelen ilkeleri ile fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretinin, \u00fccrete d\u00e2hil olarak kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 olarak de\u011fer vermektedir. Bu ba\u011flamda s\u00f6zle\u015fme h\u00fck\u00fcmlerinin ge\u00e7erlili\u011fine getirilen iki temel s\u0131n\u0131rlama mevcuttur. Bunlardan ilki, 4857 say\u0131l\u0131 … Kanunu\u2019nun 41 inci maddesi gere\u011fi fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma s\u00fcresinin bir y\u0131lda 270 saatten fazla olamayaca\u011f\u0131; di\u011feri ise kararla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lan ayl\u0131k temel \u00fccretin asgari \u00fccretin \u00fczerinde olmas\u0131 gereklili\u011fidir. Bir ba\u015fka anlat\u0131mla Dairemiz, \u00fccret seviyesinin y\u00fcksekli\u011fini kayd\u0131n ge\u00e7erlili\u011finin tespitinde dikkate almaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3. Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince taraflar aras\u0131nda imzalanan 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde bulunan y\u0131ll\u0131k 270 saate kadar fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fman\u0131n davac\u0131n\u0131n ayl\u0131k \u00fccretine d\u00e2hil oldu\u011funa dair d\u00fczenlemenin an\u0131lan s\u00f6zle\u015fmede \u00fccret yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan bahisle ge\u00e7ersiz oldu\u011fu kabul edilmi\u015f ise de 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinde \u00fccretin yaz\u0131l\u0131 olmamas\u0131n\u0131n an\u0131lan d\u00fczenlemeyi ge\u00e7ersiz h\u00e2le getirmeyece\u011fi zira 01.01.2013 tarihli … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi sonras\u0131 davac\u0131ya ilgili d\u00f6nem asgari \u00fccretinin 6,5 kat\u0131 \u00fccret (6.360,90 TL) \u00f6dendi\u011fi hususunun ihtilafs\u0131z oldu\u011fu, buna g\u00f6re taraflar aras\u0131nda d\u00fczenlenen … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesi h\u00fckm\u00fc dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda dava konusu fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n reddine karar verilmesinde bir isabetsizlik bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
4. Temyizen incelenen karar, taraflar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 iddia ve savunmalar\u0131na, dayand\u0131klar\u0131 belgelere, uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011fa uygulanmas\u0131 gereken hukuk kurallar\u0131 ile hukuki ili\u015fkinin nitelendirilmesine, dava \u015fartlar\u0131na, yarg\u0131lama ve ispat kurallar\u0131 ile kararda belirtilen gerek\u00e7elere g\u00f6re usul ve kanuna uygun olup davac\u0131 vekilince temyiz dilek\u00e7esinde ileri s\u00fcr\u00fclen nedenler karar\u0131n bozulmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirecek nitelikte g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
VI. KARAR
\nA\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeple;
\nTemyiz olunan B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131n\u0131n 6100 say\u0131l\u0131 Kanun’un 370 inci maddesinin birinci f\u0131kras\u0131 uyar\u0131nca ONANMASINA,<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 yarar\u0131na takdir edilen 8.400,00 TL duru\u015fma vek\u00e2let \u00fccreti ile a\u015fa\u011f\u0131da yaz\u0131l\u0131 temyiz giderinin davac\u0131 tarafa y\u00fckletilmesine,<\/p>\n
Dosyan\u0131n \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesine, karar\u0131n bir \u00f6rne\u011finin B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesine g\u00f6nderilmesine,<\/p>\n
10.01.2023 tarihinde oy birli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
T.C.<\/p>\n
Yarg\u0131tay<\/p>\n
9. Hukuk Dairesi<\/p>\n
2021\/4753 E., 2021\/8999 K.<\/p>\n
“\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni”<\/p>\n
MAHKEMES\u0130 :\u0130\u015f Mahkemesi
\n…<\/p>\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
Y A R G I T A Y K A R A R I<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 \u0130steminin \u00d6zeti:<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131n\u0131n, daval\u0131 bankaya ait s\u0131ras\u0131yla … , … ve …\u2019de bulunan muhtelif \u015fubelerde servis yetkilisi olarak \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, mesai saatlerini 09.00-18.00 aras\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen 19.00\/20.00\/21.00 saatlerine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 fakat fazla mesai alacaklar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6denmedi\u011fini, bu nedenle i\u015f akdini fesih etti\u011fini k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 ve fazla mesai alacaklar\u0131n\u0131 talep etti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrerek; davan\u0131n kabul\u00fcne karar verilmesini talep ve dava etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 Vekilinin Cevab\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:<\/p>\n
Daval\u0131 vekili; davac\u0131n\u0131n i\u015f akdini kendisinin sonland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 bu nedenle k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 talep edemeyece\u011fini, fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 da olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 savunarak; davan\u0131n reddine karar verilmesini talep etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme Karar\u0131n\u0131n \u00d6zeti:<\/p>\n
Mahkemece, 31.03.2016 tarihli kararda davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu, i\u015f akdini hakl\u0131 nedenle feshetti\u011fi kabul edilerek fazla mesai ve k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 alacaklar\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Dairemizin 11.03.2020 tarih 2017\/16229 esas, 2020\/4184 karar say\u0131l\u0131 ilam\u0131nda ise dosyaya ibraz edilen insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6nergesinin de\u011ferlendirmeye tabi tutularak fazla mesai \u00fccreti ile ilgili bir karar verilmesi y\u00f6n\u00fcnde bozma karar\u0131 verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkemenin 11.12.2020 tarihli bozma sonras\u0131 verilen karar\u0131nda ise bilirki\u015fi raporlar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak fazla mesai ve k\u0131dem tazminat\u0131 alacaklar\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Temyiz:<\/p>\n
Karar s\u00fcresinde daval\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Gerek\u00e7e:<\/p>\n
1- Dosyadaki yaz\u0131lara, delillerin taktirinde bir isabetsizlik bulunmamas\u0131na g\u00f6re daval\u0131n\u0131n a\u015fa\u011f\u0131daki bendin kapsam\u0131 d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kalan temyiz itirazlar\u0131 yerinde g\u00f6r\u00fclmemi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
2-Taraflar aras\u0131nda davac\u0131n\u0131n fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma alaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n hesab\u0131 hususunda uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k bulunmaktad\u0131r.
\nDavac\u0131, daval\u0131 i\u015fyerinde mesai saatlerinin 09.00-18.00 aras\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen 19.00\/20.00\/21.00 saatlerine kadar \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 buna ra\u011fmen fazla mesai \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denmedi\u011fini iddia etmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan verilen 31.03.2016 tarihli kararda davac\u0131n\u0131n, 01.04.2010-23.09.2012 tarihleri aras\u0131nda bir hafta 2,5 saat, bir hafta 9 saat fazla mesai yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmi\u015f, bu tarihten sonras\u0131 i\u00e7in ise emniyet kay\u0131tlar\u0131na dayal\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lan hesaplamaya itibar edilerek fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Dairemiz bozma karar\u0131 ile dosyaya ibraz edilen insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6netmeli\u011finin de\u011ferlendirmeye tabi tutularak fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131na karar verilmesi istenmi\u015ftir.
\nBozma sonras\u0131 ise mahkeme taraf\u0131ndan h\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda se\u00e7enekli hesaplama yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, itibar edilen 1 no\u2019lu se\u00e7enekte s\u00f6zle\u015fmenin ilk y\u0131l i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli oldu\u011fu bu nedenle 270 saat fazla mesainin ilk y\u0131l i\u00e7in \u00fccret i\u00e7inde oldu\u011funun kabul edilece\u011fi, di\u011fer y\u0131llar i\u00e7in ise fazla mesai onay\u0131 al\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131 nedeni ile y\u00f6nergenin ge\u00e7erli olmayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n kabul\u00fc ile yap\u0131lan hesaplamaya itibar edilmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
Somut uyu\u015fmazl\u0131kta; dosya i\u00e7ine ibraz edilen insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6nergesinin 7. maddesinde \u201c personelin ayl\u0131k \u00fccreti yasal fazla mesaiyi kapsayacak \u015fekilde belirlenmi\u015ftir\u201d, h\u00fckm\u00fcn\u00fcn oldu\u011fu, i\u015f s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin 5. maddesinde ise \u201c etik ilkeler ve insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi ilke ve esaslar\u0131n\u0131 kabul eder\u201d denilerek davac\u0131n\u0131n insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6netmeli\u011fini kabul etti\u011fi anla\u015f\u0131lmaktad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
H\u00fckme esas al\u0131nan bilirki\u015fi raporunda itibar edilen 1 no\u2019lu se\u00e7ene\u011fe g\u00f6re yap\u0131lan hesaplamada ilk y\u0131l i\u00e7in 270 saatlik fazla mesai \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n tenzilinin yap\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 , kalan y\u0131llar i\u00e7in ise fazla mesai onay\u0131 al\u0131nmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gerek\u00e7esi ile ilgili h\u00fckm\u00fcn ge\u00e7erli olmayaca\u011f\u0131 belirtilerek hesaplama yap\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ise de; fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma onay\u0131 al\u0131nmas\u0131 ile insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6nergesinde belirtilen temel \u00fccret i\u00e7inde fazla \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma \u00fccretlerinin \u00f6denece\u011fi kural\u0131 aras\u0131nda herhangi bir ba\u011flant\u0131 bulunmay\u0131p insan kaynaklar\u0131 y\u00f6nergesinde bulunan h\u00fckm\u00fcn t\u00fcm \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma d\u00f6nemi i\u00e7in kabul edilmesi gerekmektedir. Verilen karar bu y\u00f6n\u00fc ile hatal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n
3- Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki bir di\u011fer uyu\u015fmazl\u0131k, daval\u0131 lehine h\u00fckmedilmesi gereken ret vekalet \u00fccreti hususundad\u0131r.<\/p>\n
Davac\u0131n\u0131n, 23.12.2015 tarihli \u0131slah dilek\u00e7esinde hakkaniyet indirimli hali ile 5.746,13 TL fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 talep edilmi\u015ftir. Mahkeme karar\u0131nda ise hakkaniyet indirimli hali ile 4.863,87 TL fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131na karar verilmi\u015ftir. Mahkemece talep edilen fazla mesai alaca\u011f\u0131 ile h\u00fckmedilen alacak aras\u0131ndaki farka dair h\u00fck\u00fcm kurulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi, reddedilen 882,26 TL alacak miktar\u0131 i\u00e7in de daval\u0131 lehine ayr\u0131ca vekalet \u00fccreti verilmemi\u015f olmas\u0131 hatal\u0131 olup karar\u0131n bu y\u00f6nden de bozulmas\u0131 gerekmi\u015ftir.<\/p>\n
SONU\u00c7:<\/p>\n
Temyiz olunan karar\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131klanan sebeplerle BOZULMASINA, pe\u015fin al\u0131nan temyiz harc\u0131n\u0131n istek halinde ilgiliye iadesine, 17.05.2021 tarihinde oybirli\u011fiyle karar verildi.<\/p>\n
\u200bYarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi\u2019nin 10.01.2023 tarihli, 2022\/16732 E., 2023\/110 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131 ile 17.05.2021 tarihli, 2021\/4753 E., 2021\/8999 K. say\u0131l\u0131 karar\u0131\u00a0Hukuki Haber<\/p>\n
Haberin Al\u0131nt\u0131land\u0131\u011f\u0131 Kaynak: www.hukukihaber.net<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
T.C. Yarg\u0131tay 9. Hukuk Dairesi 2022\/16732 E., 2023\/110 K. “\u0130\u00e7tihat Metni” \u0130NCELENEN KARARIN MAHKEMES\u0130 : … B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi 3. Hukuk Dairesi SAYISI : 2020\/599 E., 2022\/1747 K. DAVA TAR\u0130H\u0130 : 27.12.2017 KARAR : \u0130stinaf ba\u015fvurular\u0131n\u0131n esastan reddi \u0130LK DERECE MAHKEMES\u0130 : … 5. … Mahkemesi SAYISI : 2017\/1286 E., 2019\/1103 K. Taraflar aras\u0131ndaki alacak davas\u0131ndan dolay\u0131 yap\u0131lan yarg\u0131lama sonunda \u0130lk Derece Mahkemesince davan\u0131n k\u0131smen kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Karar\u0131n taraf vekilleri taraf\u0131ndan istinaf edilmesi \u00fczerine, B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesince ba\u015fvurular\u0131n esastan reddine karar verilmi\u015ftir. B\u00f6lge Adliye Mahkemesi karar\u0131 davac\u0131 vekili taraf\u0131ndan temyiz edilmekle; kesinlik, s\u00fcre, temyiz \u015fart\u0131 ve di\u011fer usul eksiklikleri y\u00f6n\u00fcnden yap\u0131lan \u00f6n inceleme sonucunda temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin kabul\u00fcne karar verilmi\u015ftir. Davac\u0131 vekilince temyiz incelemesinin duru\u015fmal\u0131 olarak yap\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n istenilmesi \u00fczerine, i\u015fin duru\u015fmaya t\u00e2bi oldu\u011fu anla\u015f\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve duru\u015fma i\u00e7in 10.01.2023 Sal\u0131 g\u00fcn\u00fc tayin edilerek taraflara tebligat g\u00f6nderilmi\u015ftir. Duru\u015fma g\u00fcn\u00fc davac\u0131 vekili Avukat … ve davac\u0131 as\u0131l ile daval\u0131 vekili Avukat \u0130rem Dilek geldiler. Duru\u015fmaya ba\u015flanarak haz\u0131r bulunan avukatlar\u0131n s\u00f6zl\u00fc a\u00e7\u0131klamalar\u0131 dinlendikten sonra duru\u015fmaya son verildi. Tetkik H\u00e2kimi taraf\u0131ndan haz\u0131rlanan rapor dinlendikten sonra dosyadaki belgeler incelenip gere\u011fi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcld\u00fc: I. DAVA Davac\u0131 vekili dava dilek\u00e7esinde; m\u00fcvekkilinin daval\u0131 b\u00fcnyesinde 13.03.1995-09.05.2017 tarihleri aras\u0131nda idari m\u00fcd\u00fcr olarak g\u00f6rev yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131, … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin hakl\u0131 neden olmaks\u0131z\u0131n feshedildi\u011fini, … s\u00f6zle\u015fmesinin …<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hukukihaber"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n