[ad_1]
A young man who got married experienced the impact of his life in the workplace he went to after the wedding. The young worker, who alleged that he learned that his employment contract was terminated and that the termination was unfair, filed a lawsuit in the Labor Court demanding a decision on the collection of his compensation and notice of payment receivable.
Defendant chief defending in court; He claimed that the plaintiff did not come to work for 5 consecutive days without permission and that it was absolutely impossible to allow him an employee who was married and then bring a report of absenteeism.
As they learned, the plaintiff demanded the dismissal of the case, alleging that the plaintiff was absent from work for running away with someone other than his fiancée, for which reason the dismissal was based on just cause.
The court ruled that the case was accepted on the grounds that she did not come to work due to her marriage license. The defendant employer appealed the decision.
The Ninth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, which re-examines the file, under the protection of subsection (g) of subsection (II) of article 25 of the Labor Law numbered 4857, establishes that the worker has not obtained permission for two days consecutive workdays or twice in a month without obtaining the permission of the employer. She drew attention to the fact that the employer has ruled that there is a legitimate opportunity for dismissal if she does not continue her work for three working days in a month or the next working day. The decision said:
“The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff did not go to the workplace that the employer was aware of due to the marriage and that he used some type of license. And that the plaintiff came to the workplace after the employment contract was terminated and requested to be considered as leave during the periods when you showed the marriage certificate.
The plaintiff’s witnesses, who claimed to have heard that the plaintiff received marriage leave and was later fired for truancy, were confirmed by their own statements that they were not in the workplace when the plaintiff’s employment contract ended, and these witnesses relay what they heard from the plaintiff.
For these reasons, the statement of the accused witnesses who were in the workplace on the termination date, each of whom was the plaintiff’s successor and supervisor, was recognized and the employer legitimately terminated the employment contract due to absenteeism, and it was required to revoke the acceptance, while the requests for compensation and notice had to be rejected. It was decided unanimously to revoke the appealed decision. “
