Economics and Law Journal
One of the most fundamental difficulties that the parties must overcome in labour judiciary is the issue of proof. The nature of the relationship between the parties, the events that have taken place, old habits, failure to keep documents and records properly or at all, make it difficult for the parties to prove their claims in the event of a dispute. However, in cases arising from private law disputes, winning the case depends on proving whether the facts in dispute between the parties are real or not. The purpose of proof, which is an indispensable part of litigation, is to convince the judge about the reality of the alleged material fact. During the proceeding, the judge has to make a decision about a controversial matter that happened before the trial and outside the court. At this point, proving in a judgment is a method used to convince the judge about the reality of the alleged events. However, not being able to prove every alleged matter is a serious risk in a trial. For this reason, the legislator has laid down various rules as to who should bear the risk of lack of proof. The rules regarding the burden of proof are a method of determining who would bear the risk of uncertainty in the event that a factual assertion cannot be proven.
However, in cases where it is very difficult to prove the material fact, the party who cannot prove its claim runs the risk of losing the case. However, the concept of “the natural flow of life” is frequently used to overcome the difficulties of proof in labor judiciary. When judicial decisions are examined, a serious
conceptual confusion on this issue draws the attention. In fact, instead of the “concept of the natural flow of life”, it is observed that the institutions of “rules of experience”, “presumption of fact”, “indication”, “first appearance proof” or “plausible proof” are used together or separately.
The concept of natural flow of life is not clearly defined in our legislation. This concept is also rather vague and relative in nature. The essence of the concept of the natural flow of life is essentially the rules of experience. Underlying the rules of experience are inferences based on the observation of repeated events. The rules of experience are abstract connections between events. Although this observation does not mean that there is an unexceptional repetition of the plot. It does allow us to suggest that there is a very high probability that similar sequences of events/procedures will lead to similar results in the future. The natural flow of life is essentially a set of rules based on experience. It simply shows that there is a high probability that repeated events will occur in a similar way in the future. Also, the natural flow of life is a presumption of fact in terms of its legal nature.
On the other hand, some opinions in the doctrine and the majority of judicial decisions state that the party relying on the natural flow of life is relieved of the burden of proof. And even that the concept of the natural flow of life has a nature that reverses the burden of proof. On the opposite, the natural flow of life, which we refer to as the actual presumption, does not create a new burden of proof rule. As a result of this, it does not cause a shift in the burden of proof. The concept of natural flow of life is a matter related to the principle that the judge is free to assess the evidence. Although the concept of natural flow of life makes it easier for the person who bears the risk of not having it to prove his case, it should not be regarded as a general rule in all cases. Because the natural flow of life is based on the high probability that events that have occurred frequently in the past will occur in a similar way in the future. However, this probability does not necessarily always come true. Moreover, what a young person understands about the natural flow of life based on rules of experience may differ from what a person with much life experience understands. From this perspective, the relative nature of the concept of natural flow of life should not be neglected. Therefore, it should be accepted that the concept of the natural flow of life is essentially a de facto presumption and that it provides ease of proof and comes to the fore in the evaluation of evidence.
Publisher Address : Birleşik Metal-İş Trade Union
Tünel Yolu Cad. No:2 Bostancı,
Kadıköy İstanbul 34744 Türkiye
Publisher Phone: +90 (216) 380 85 90
Publisher email: calismatoplum@birlesikmetal.org
Editorial email :dergicalismavetoplum@gmail.com
Copyright ©: 2024 Çalışma ve Toplum. Web Desing and Publishing Preparation: Journal Editorial Desk and Birleşik Metal-İş Union Publishing Service
