A signed resignation letter does not necessarily resolve every dispute about how employment ended. Its authorship, preparation, reflection of the employee’s true intention and the other evidence all matter. This case also concerned proof of annual leave.
Background
The employee stated that he had worked as a mechanical tradesperson on the employer’s overseas construction sites between 2013 and 2018, earning a net monthly wage of USD 3,500. He alleged unjustified dismissal and claimed severance and notice pay together with other employment receivables. The employer maintained that he had resigned and that no employment payments remained outstanding.
The lower courts’ findings
A resignation letter was on file. The first-instance court declined to rely on it because of doubts concerning its dates and awarded severance and notice pay. The regional appellate court dismissed the appeals on their merits.
The Court of Cassation’s decision
The employee acknowledged that the name and signature on the document were his, but alleged that the dates had been inserted later. The Court found that he had not proved that his decision to resign was affected by a defect in consent. It held that the severance and notice pay claims should have been rejected.
How should annual leave be proved?
The Court also stated that the employer bears the burden of proving that annual leave was taken, through a signed leave register or equivalent document. The calculation in this case had not adequately established whether certain periods spent in Turkey were annual leave or unpaid leave. The nature of those periods required further examination.
What this means for employers
Resignation records should clearly document the date, signature and circumstances showing the employee’s intention. Annual leave records should identify when leave started and ended. Keeping a document in the personnel file is not enough: its contents and evidential value also matter.
Decision details
Court of Cassation, 9th Civil Chamber
Case No.: 2026/376
Decision No.: 2026/2182
Decision date: 9 March 2026
This article provides general information. Each case must be assessed in light of its own circumstances.
Return to Court of Cassation Decisions →