<mods:mods version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" xmlns:mods="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"><mods:titleInfo><mods:title>PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM PENOLAKAN PUTUSAN SERTA MERTA (UITVOERBAAR BIJ VOORRAAD) TERHADAP PEMENUHAN HAK PEKERJA (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 4/PDT.SUS-PHI/2024/PN YYK)</mods:title></mods:titleInfo><mods:name type="personal"><mods:namePart type="given">NIM.: 22103040189</mods:namePart><mods:namePart type="family">Muhammad Nabil Fadhlurahman</mods:namePart><mods:role><mods:roleTerm type="text">author</mods:roleTerm></mods:role></mods:name><mods:abstract>Industrial relations frequently give rise to disputes concerning the fulfillment of&#13;
workers' rights, particularly following the termination of employment. One legal&#13;
mechanism intended to provide immediate protection is the provisionally&#13;
enforceable judgment (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad). However, in practice, requests for&#13;
such judgments are not always granted. This study examines the judges' legal&#13;
considerations in rejecting a request for a provisionally enforceable judgment in&#13;
Decision Number 4/Pdt.Sus-PHI/2024/PN Yyk and analyzes its implications for the&#13;
fulfillment of workers' rights by applying Gustav Radbruch's theory of justice and&#13;
Philipus M. Hadjon's theory of legal protection.&#13;
This research employs an empirical legal research method with an empirical&#13;
juridical approach. Primary data were collected through interviews with judges of&#13;
the Industrial Relations Court at the Yogyakarta District Court, while secondary&#13;
data were obtained from statutory regulations, court decisions, books, and scholarly&#13;
journals. The collected data were analyzed descriptively using a qualitative&#13;
approach and inductive reasoning.&#13;
The findings reveal that the rejection of the request for a provisionally&#13;
enforceable judgment was based on considerations of legal certainty, judicial&#13;
prudence, and the failure to satisfy the requirements set forth in Article 180 of the&#13;
Herziene Indonesisch Reglement (HIR), Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA)&#13;
Number 3 of 2000, and SEMA Number 4 of 2001. These considerations reflect the&#13;
judges' effort to balance justice, expediency, and legal certainty. Nevertheless, the&#13;
rejection delayed the execution of the judgment and the fulfillment of workers'&#13;
statutory rights, thereby reducing the effectiveness of legal protection, as rights&#13;
recognized by the court could not be immediately enforced.</mods:abstract><mods:classification authority="lcc">347.07 Keputusan Hakim</mods:classification><mods:originInfo><mods:dateIssued encoding="iso8061">2026-08-14</mods:dateIssued></mods:originInfo><mods:originInfo><mods:publisher>UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUM</mods:publisher></mods:originInfo><mods:genre>Thesis</mods:genre></mods:mods>