349 / 516
pal employer and the General Directorate shall be the contracting
authority and there will be no subcontracting relation
2
.
In some parts of the projects, the contracting authorities appoint
some employees in order to control the works. This fact may be inter-
preted as the contracting authority has employees at the work place.
However, this fact should not be interpreted sufficient to accept the
contracting authority as a principal employer
3
.
The High Court of Cassation has also decided that the contracting
authorities should not be considered as a principal employer
4
.
“In case the work is carried out in whole by another employer, a
subcontract relation would not exist and a joint liability could not be
mentioned within the terms of Law numbered 506. Accordingly, in case
the employer has granted the task to carry out the work to other per-
sons through tenders without employing employees, the owner of the
work (contracting authority) shall not be considered as a principal
employer as defined in the legislation and a sub contract relation
would not exist.”
Conclusion
As seen above, the constitution of a subcontract relation could not
be reckoned in each case where a contractor carries out the work. In
case the work is carried out in whole by a contractor, the contractor
shall be the principal employer and the owner of the work shall be con-
sidered as contracting authority. In this case, the contracting authority
shall not be included within the subcontract relation and shall not be
liable for the receivables of the contractor’s employees.
LABOR LAW
335
2
Suzek, Sarper
, Is Hukuku, 3. Bası, Istanbul 2006, s. 137.
3
Kılıcoglu, Mustafa / Senocak, Kemal
, Is Kanunu Serhi, 2. Baskı, Istanbul 2008, s. 68.
4
The decision of the Plenary Assembly of High Court of Cassation dated 02.02.2011, Case no.
2010/21-739, Decision no. 2011/5; see also the decision of the 9
th
Civil Chamber dated
13.9.1994, Case no. 1994/3429, decision no. 1994/11465, the decision of the 21
st
Civil
Chamber dated 24.10.2002, Case no. 2002/7988, Decision no. 2002/9046.