345 LABOR LAW the entry into force of the TCO, Article 132 of the TCO has become the legal basis for release agreements. In addition, Article 420/2 of the TCO has become applicable to labor claims arising from the employment relationship. According to the Article 420/2 of the TCO, the validity conditions are as follows: a release agreement pertaining to the employee’s receivable from the employer should be in written form, the type and amount of the debt should be clearly indicated, and the payment should be made in full and via bank transfer. In addition, it is required that the release agreement enters into force at least one month after the termination of the employment agreement. A release agreement that does not satisfy these validity conditions shall be deemed null and void.3 The Validity of a Release Agreement Concluded in the Course of the Employment Relationship The question of validity of the release agreements that is frequently used in the employment relationship by the name acquittance, was evaluated in accordance to the “principle of interpreting on behalf of the employee” and a development in particularly in line with the decisions of the Court of Cassation has been observed within the years, especially until the entry into force of TCO. As per Article 420 of the TCO, a release agreement that is not signed within at least 1 month starting from the termination of the employment agreement shall be deemed void. The indication of a date on release agreements has gained importance since this issue was defined as a validity condition through Article 420 of the TCO. Within this context, the Court of Cassation has examined in many disputes the validity of a release agreement concluded in the course of the employment relationship and has found those kinds of agreements to be invalid.4 3 Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098, Article 420 (2). 4 Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, No. 2018/22-169 E. 2021/872 K., 29.6.2021, Court of Cassation General Assembly of Civil Chambers, No. 2016/9-2174 E. 2021/36 K., 4.2.2021, 9th CC of the Court of Cassation, No. 2019/4990 E. 2021/2589 K., 27.1.2021.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjUzNjE=