The subject of the dispute was the recognition of the dismissal order as unlawful and its cancellation, reinstatement to work, and recovery of average earnings for the period of forced absence from work.
The court of cassation overturned the ruling of the appellate court, which had признав the leaving of the claim without consideration due to the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear in the court of first instance as незаконним. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court had not considered that proper notification of the plaintiff’s representative about court hearings is equivalent to notification of the party itself, and that the procedural law does not require consideration of the validity of the reasons for the plaintiff’s repeated failure to appear if no application was submitted to hear the case in the absence of the plaintiff. The court of cassation emphasized that only proper notification of the plaintiff about the date and time of the hearing, repeated failure to appear in the court hearing, and failure to submit an application to hear the case in the absence of the plaintiff are of legal significance. Also, the Supreme Court noted that the appellate court did not pay attention to the fact that the case file contains evidence of proper notification of the plaintiff’s representative about the court hearings.
: The Supreme Court departed from the conclusion regarding the distribution of court costs in the event of the cancellation of court decisions with the referral of the case for a new trial, indicating that the distribution of court costs is carried out by the court that makes the final decision based on the results of the new trial of the case.
The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the appellate court and sent the case for a new trial to the appellate court.
