Supreme Court Review of the Termination of an Employment Contract for Compelling Reasons from the Perspective of the Employee and Employer 07 January 2026

The claimant employee initiated an action before the Court of First Instance alleging that the indefinite-term employment contract had been terminated by the employer without just cause, requesting payment of notice pay as well as receivables arising from overtime and weekend holiday work.
 

The defendant employer argued that mining operations had been suspended due to the decisions of the Energy Market Regulatory Authority, and therefore the employment contract was terminated on the basis of a "force majeure event," asserting that notice pay was not obligatory.
 

By the decision of the Ankara 60th Labour Court, Merits No. 2023/287, Decision No. 2025/25, dated 14.01.2025, the employee's claims for overtime and weekend holiday pay were partially upheld; however, the request for notice pay was dismissed on the grounds of the employer's assertion of force majeure. The judgment became final due to the monetary threshold.
 

The Ministry of Justice filed an extraordinary appeal for the sake of the law pursuant to Article 363 of the Code of Civil Procedure, asserting that the workplace had been closed due to the suspension of a commercial contract with a third-party company; that such circumstance does not constitute force majeure; and that dismissal of the claim for notice pay was a misjudgment, requesting reversal of the judgment for the sake of the law.
 

Following its review, the 9th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation stated that:
"Although the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim for notice pay by giving weight to the defence of the employer, pursuant to Article 25/III of the Labour Law No. 4857, in order for the employer to exercise the right of termination due to force majeure, the compelling event (force majeure) must occur in the employee's personal sphere rather than at the workplace, and due to temporary impossibility of performance without the employee's fault, the obligation to perform work must become unfulfillable." Thus, emphasis was placed on the requirement that force majeure must arise in the sphere of the employee.
 

In parallel, it is observed that the same principle was established in the decision of the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (Merits No. 1979/876, Decision No. 1979/316, dated 21.03.1979; Süzek, Labour Law, p. 699), which held that:"...where the compelling event pertains to the employee, the employee may not exercise the right of termination without notice; likewise, where the compelling event pertains to the workplace, the employer is not entitled to terminate without notice."
 

Accordingly, the reversal for the benefit of the law is consistent with established precedent. Although the precedents referenced in the dissenting opinion are not cited with their full citations, it is understood that the relevant decisions consider catastrophic events occurring in the employee's personal sphere within the scope of Article 24/I-a. For instance, in its decision of 9th Civil Chamber, Merits No. 2017/8693, Decision No. 2018/16210, dated 19.09.2018, the Court held that Article 24/I-a applies to an employee refusing to work underground following a firedamp explosion, entitling the employee to severance pay. Likewise, in the decision of 9th Civil Chamber, Merits No. 2008/34679, Decision No. 2010/26086, dated 28.09.2010, Article 24/I-a was applied where an employee resigned from a workplace located within an active civil-war zone in Iraq, granting the employee entitlement to severance pay.

Pursuant to Article 24 of the Labour Law, the employee is entitled to terminate the employment contract for just cause where "a compelling event preventing work at the workplace for more than one week arises." Correspondingly, Article 25 regulates the employer's right, stating that just cause arises where "a compelling event prevents the employee from performing work for more than one week."

In conclusion, the force majeure condition stipulated under Article 25/III of the Labour Law No. 4857 does not grant the employer the right to terminate on the basis of operational or workplace-related events. The 9th Civil Chamber emphasized that workplace-originated compelling events, such as shutdown or suspension of operations, cannot constitute just cause for termination within the scope of Article 25/III. Such events are instead assessed within the scope of Article 24/III. Otherwise, the employer becomes liable for notice pay.