clr/1977/1977_1_120.pdf

(1)of theTermination of Employment Law, 1967 (Law 24/67), as re-enacted by section 3 of Law 6/73, whichreads as follows: 10 "

(1)The Industrial Disputes Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on all industrial disputes arising as a result of the application of the present Law or of any Regulations made under it or of both, including all matters incidental or complementary to such disputes". 15 Counsel for the appellant contended that since in section 17

(1)* of Law 24/67 there is express reference to the right to compensation for redundancy under a collective agreement, the Industrial Disputes Court had jurisdiction to deal with the matter before itin thepresentcase. 20 25 30 35. Held,

(1)that Chough it is correct that section 17 of Law 24/67 is only applicable to cases of redundancy as defined in section 18**,on the basis of the contents of the Case Stated, thisCourt does not think that itcan be said,with any certainty, that the termination of the services of the appellant for redundancy is not an instance coming within the ambit of section 18.

(2)That once there arises, under section 17, in relation to the payment of compensation for redundancy, as provided for under a collective agreement, the possibility of making a payment to an employee from the Fund, the calculation of the exact amount payable to the redundant employee under the collective agreement is directly related to the application of a provision of Law 24/67; and that, accordingly, any dispute as to the mode of thecalculation of that amount—such as theone in the present case—is an industrial dispute in the sense of section 30 of Law 24/67, which defines the jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Court (see, also, sections 3, 5, 16, 17 and 18ofLaw 24/67).'

(3)That thefact that by Law 1/75 in a case such as that of the termination of the services of the appellant for redundancy the provisions of section 17 have-been suspended inso far as payments out of the fund are concerned, was not a suf*Quoted at pp. 126- 128 post. **Quoted at pp. 129- 130 post. 121 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. ficient reason for finding that there was nolonger an industrial dispute to be determined by the Industrial Disputes Court in the present case,because the amount payable to the appellant, under the collective agreement, 'had still to be determined; and that,accordingly,the IndustrialDisputesCourthadjurisdiction 5 todeal with the matter. Appeal allowed. Case Stated. Case Stated'by theChairman of the Industrial Disputes Court relativetohisdecision of the20th September, 1975, 10 in proceedings under section 3 of theTermination of Employment Law, 1967 (Law24 of 1967) instituted byManolis Stavrou against MobilLP Gas (Cyprus) Ltd. whereby his claim for compensation was dismissed, on the ground that theIndustrial Disputes Court had nojurisdic- 15 tiontodealwiththematter. E. Efstathiou,for the appellant. A. Dikigoropoullos, for therespondent. Cur.adv. vult. The judgment of the Court wasdelivered by:20 TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.:The appellant appeals, by way of a Case Stated, to this Court against the decision of the Industrial Disputes Court (in application No.260/74) by virtue of which it was held that the said Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter taken before it by the 25 appellant. The said matter was, in effect, a dispute between the appellant and therespondents concerning thelength of the period to be taken into account in calculating a payment to be made, by the respondents to the appellant, under a 30 collectiveagreement,duetothetermination of theservices of theappellant onthegroundof redundancy. That the services of the appellant were rightly terminated bytherespondents, on the aboveground, wasnotin disputebetween theparties. The Industrial Disputes Court took the view that, in the circumstances, it had no jurisdiction todeal with the aforementioned matter, because there was no dispute be122 35 fore it as regards the lawfulness or not of the termination of the employment of the appellant and all that was in dispute between the parties was the calculation of the sum to be paid to the appellant under a collective agreement. 5 The jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Court is to be found in section 30 of the Termination of Employment Law, 1967 (Law 24/67), as re-enacted by section 3 of the Termination of Employment (Amendment) Law, 1973 (Law 6/73); for the purposes of the present case, the ma10 terialpart of section 30 is subsection

(1), which reads as follows:- 15 20 25 30 35 40 "

(1)To Δικαστήριον 'Εργατικών Διαφορώνκέκτηται άποκλειστικήν αρμοδιότητα να άποφασίζχ] έπι άπασών τών εργατικών διαφορών των αναφυομένων συνεπεία της εφαρμογής τοΰ παρόντος Νόμου ή οιωνδήποτε Κα­ νονισμών εκδοθέντων δυνάμει αΰτοϋ ή αμφοτέρων, πε­ ριλαμβανομένου και παντός παρεμπίπτοντος ή συμπλη­ ρωματικούπροςτοιαύταςδιαφοράςθέματος". ("

(1)The Industrial Disputes Court shall have exelusive jurisdiction to adjudicate on all industrial dis­ putes arising as a result of the application of the pre­ sent Law or of any Regulations made under it or of both, including all matters incidental or complemen­ tary to such disputes".). The Industrial Disputes Court, in reaching the conclu­ sion that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter be­ fore it, referred to sections 3, 5 and 16 of Law 24/

1. Section 3, above, reads as follows:" 3 . "Οταν, κατά ή μετά την όρισθείσαν ήμέραν, ό έργοδότης τερματίζη οι' οιονδήποτε λόγον άλλον ή τών έν τφ αρθρω 5 εκτιθεμένων λόγων, την άπασχόλησιν έργοδοτουμένου ό όποιος έχει απασχόληση συνεχώς ΰπ' αύτοϋ επί είκοσιέξ τουλάχιστον εβδομάδας, ό έργοδοτοΰμενος κέκτηται δικαίωμα ε'ις αποζημίωσαν καταβαλλομένην ύποτοΰ εργοδότου του και ύπολογιζομένην συμμώνως προςτονΠρώτον Πίνακα: Νοείται δτι εργοδότης και έργοδοτούμενος δύναται δι' εγγράφου συμβάσεως συναφθείσης κατά τον χρόνον της προσλήψεως τοΰ έργοδοτουμένου νά παρατείνωσι την ύπό τοΰ παρόντος άρθρου προβλεπομένην περίοδον 123 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. 1977 Febr. 22 STAVROU v. MOBIL L P GA S (CYPRUS) LTD. συνεχούς απασχολήσεως μέχρις ανωτάτουορίουέκατον τεσσάρωνεβδομάδων". ("3· Where, on or after the appointed day, an employer terminates for any reason other than those set out in section 5 the employment of an employee 5 who has been continuously employed by him for not j e s s t j i a n twenty-six weeks, the employee shall have a right to compensation payable by his employer and calculated in accordance with the First Schedule: Provided that an employer and an employee may 10 by agreement in writing made at the time the em­ ployee enters into the employment extend the period of continuous employment provided by this section to a maximum of one hundred and four weeks".). _ The material part of section 5, above, is paragraph (b) thereof, which reads as follows:- 15 " 5 . Τερματισμός απασχολήσεως δι* οιονδήποτετώνα­ κολούθων λόγων δεν παρέχει δικαίωμα ειςάποζημίωσιν: (α) 20 (β) δταν ό έργοδοτούμενος κατέστη πλεονάζων ΰπό τηνεννοιαντοΰΜέρους IV". ("
2. Termination of employment for any of the fol­ lowing reasons shall not give rise to a right to com­ pensation:- 25 (a) (b) where the employee has become redundant within themeaning of Part IV".). Subsection

(1)of section 16, above, is the material part of such section and itreads as follows:- 30 "16.

(1)"Οτανκατά ή μετάτην όρισ&εϊσαν ήμέρανή άπασχόλησις έργοδοτουμένου άπασχοληθέντος συνεχώς έπι έκατον τεσσάρας εβδομάδαςή πλέον ΰπδτοΰ αύτοΰ εργοδότου τερματίζηται λόγφ πλεονασμού,ό έργοδοτού­ μενος δικαιούταιεις πληρωμήν λόγφ πλεονασμούέκτου 35 Ταμείου: Νοείται δτι ό 'Τπουργός δύναται, δια Διατάγματος 124 5 10 15 δημοσιευθησομένου εις την έπίσημον εφημερίδατηςΔη­ μοκρατίας, νά ελάττωση τον υπό τοΰ παρόντος εδαφίου καυΌριζόμενον αριθμόν έΰδομάδωνσυνεχοΰ; απασχολή­ σεως οϋιως ώστε νά ληφϋώσι νκ όψιν τακτικαιέποχιακαι διακυμάνσεις εις την άπασχόλησιν εν οίφδήποτε έπαγγέλματι ήείοικηεπιχειρήσει'1. ("16.

(1)Where, on or after the appointed day, the employment of an employee who has been continu­ ously employed for one hundred and four weeks or more by the same employer is terminated because of redundancy the employee shall be entitled to a redun­ dancy payment from, theFund: Provided that the Minister may, by Order to be published in the official Gazette of the Republic, reduce the number of weeks of continuous employment prescribed by this sub-section to take account of re­ gular seasonal fluctuations in employment in any trade or specific business".). Section 16 is to be found in Part IV of Law 24/

1. By section 2 of the Termination of Employment (Amend­ ment) Law, 1975 (Law 1/75), it was provided that the provisions in Part IV of Law 24/67 concerning the right of employees to payments, because of redundancy, from the Fund-—(the Fund being that which is referred to in 25 section 16 of Law 24/67)—is suspended in relation to instances where the employment has been terminated or will be terminated after July 14, 1974; and fc appears to be common ground, in the present case, that the employ­ ment of the appellant was terminated on the ground of 30 redundancy inAugust,
2. 20 35 40 The Industrial Disputes Court seems to have taken the view that because it was conceded by the appellant that his employment had been terminated on the ground of re­ dundancy, and that was a ground mentioned in section 5(b) of Law 24/67, it followed that there was no dispute as regards the application of section 3 of the same Law, in the present case, since such section 3 relates to instan­ ces other than those in which the termination of employ­ ment has taken place under the said section
3. The Industrial Disputes Court, furthermore, took the view that since there was no dispute before it concerning 125 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBTL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. 1977 Fehr 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD the application of section 3 of Law 24/67 it could not be | j ^ a i ^ 6 dispute a s t 0 m e i e n gth of the period to be sa taken into account in calculating the amount payable to ^ appellant by the respondents, under the collective agreement concerned, was a matter within section 30

(1)of Law 24/67, so that it would come within its jurisdic­ tion. By counsel for the appellant we have been referred to section 17 of Law 24/67, which reads as follows:"17. ( l ) "Οταν λόγφ πλεονασμού, ώς ούτος καθορί- 10 ζεται εν τφ άρθρω 18, έργοδοτούμενος δικαιούταικατά ή μετά την όρισθεϊσαν ήμέραν εις οιανδήποτε άμεσον πληρωμήν λόγφ πλεονασμού, χορήγημα λόγφ απολύσε­ ως, φιλοδώρημα ή οιανδήποτε άλλην πληρωμήν τοιού­ του ποσοΰ χορηγουμένου εν σχέσει προς την άπασχόλη- 15 σίν του παρ' εργοδότη, είτε το δικαίωμα τούτουφίστα­ ται λόγω εθίμου, νόμου, συλλογικής συμφωνίας, συμ­ βάσεως είτε δι' άλλον λόγον, εάν το ποσόν της πληρω­ μής ταύτηςύπερβαίνητην πληρωμήντήν οποίανό έργο­ δοτούμενος θά έλάμβανεν έν άναφορφ προς τδν Τέ- 20 ταρτον Πίνακα,ό έργοδοτούμενος λαμβάνει το μεγαλύτερον τώνδύοποσών: Νοείται δτι κατά τόν ύπολογισμόν τοΰ δυνάμει τοΰ παρόντος εδαφίου οφειλομένου εις τόν έργοδοτούμενον ποσοΰ οιαδήποτε εισφορά γενομένη υπό τοΰ εργοδότου- 25 μένου έναντι της τοιαύτης πληρωμής λόγφ πλεονασμού, χορηγήματος λόγφ απολύσεως, φιλοδωρήματος ή άλ­ λης πληρωμής τοιούτουποσοΰ και οιοσδήποτε τόκος έπι τοιαύτης εισφοράςαφαιρείται.

(2)"Οταν έν περιπτώσει πλεονασμού εργοδότου- 30 μένος δικαιούται είς πληρωμήν ώς καθορίζεται έν τφ έδαφίω

(1)τοΰπαρόντοςάρθρουκαι ή τοιαύτη πληρω­ μή Ισούται προς τήν πληρωμήν εις τήν οποίαν ό έργο­ δοτούμενος δικαιούταιδυνάμει τοΰ Τετάρτου Πίνακος ή είναι μικρότερα ταύτης, τότε πληρώνονται είς τόν έργο- 35 δοτούμενονταακόλουθα: (α) ό έργοδοτούμενος λαμβάνει παρά τοΰ εργοδότου ή εξ οιουδήποτε ταμείου ή άλλης διευθετήσεως λειτουργούσης διά λογαριασμόν τοΰ εργοδότου τοσυμφώνως προςτοεδάφιον

(1)τοΰπαρόντος 40 άρθρου όφειλόμενον ποσόν* 126 (β) ή διαφορά μεταξύ τοΰ δυνάμει τοΰ Τετάρτου Ιίινακος οφειλομένου ποσοΰ καιτοΰ δυνάμειτοΰ εδαφίου

(1)τοΰ παρόντος άρθρου οφειλομένου ποσού πληρώνεται εις τόν έργοδοτούμενον ύπό τοΰ Ταμείου. 10

(3)"Οταν ό έργοδοτούμενος δικαιοΰται δυνάμει τοΰ εδαφίου

(1)τοΰ παρόντος άρθρου είς πληρωμήν μεγαλυτέραν εκείνης την οποίαν θά έλάμβανεν έν άναφορςί προς τόν Τέταρτον Πίνακα,τότε πληρώνονται είς τόν έργοδοτούμενον τα ακόλουθα: (α) ό έργοδοτούμενος λαμβάνει έκ τοΰ Ταμείου το ποσόν το όποιον θά έλάμβανεν έάν ή πληρωμή του ΰπελογίζετο έν άναφορφ προς τόν Τέταρτον Πίνακα. 15 20 25 30 35 40 (β) ή διαφορά μεταξύ τοΰ έν άναφορςίπρος τόν Τέ­ ταρτον Πίνακα υπολογιζόμενου ποσοΰ καΐ τοΰ δυνάμει τοΰ εδαφίου

(1)τοΰ παρόντος άρθρου οφειλομένου ποσοΰ πληρώνεται απ' ευθείας εις τόν έργοδοτούμενον ύπό τοΰ εργοδότου ή έξ οι­ ουδήποτε ταμείου ή άλλης διευθετήσεως λει­ τουργούσης διά λογαριασμόν τοΰ εργοδότου". ("17.

(1)Where because of redundancy, as defined in section 18, an employee is entitled, on or after the appointed day, to any immediate redundancy pay­ ment, severance pay, gratuity or any other such lump sum payment granted in relation to his employment with an employer, whether this entitlement is by rea­ son of custom, law, collective agreement, contract or otherwise, if the amount of that payment is in excess of the payment the employee would receive by refe­ rence to the Fourth Schedule then the employee shall receive the greater of the two sums: Provided that in calculating the amount due to the employee under this sub-section any contributior made by the employee towards such redundancy pay­ ment, severance pay, gratuity or other such lump sum payment and any interest on such a contribution shall be discounted.

(2). Where, on redundancy, an employee is en­ titled to a payment as specified in sub-section

(1)of this section and that payment is equal to or less than 127 1977 Febr. 22 MANOUS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. 1977 Febr. 22 MAN0LIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. the payment to which the employee is entitled under the Fourth Schedule, then payment shall be made to the employeeasfollows:(a) the employeeshall receivefrom the employer or from any fund or other arrangement operated on behalf of the employer the amount dueinaccordance with sub-section

(1)ofthis section; (b) the difference between the amount dueunder the Fourth Schedule and the amount dueunder sub-section

(1)of this section shall be paid to the employee by the Fund. 10

(3)Where an employee is entitled under sub-section

(1)of thissection to agreaterpayment than that he would receive by reference to the Fourth Schedule, then payment shallbemade to the employeeas follows:- 15 (

1. a)the employee shall receive from the Fund the amount he would have received had his payment been calculated by reference to the 20 Fourth Schedule; (
2. b)the difference between the amount calculated by reference to the Fourth Schedule and the amount due under sub-section

(1)of thissection shall be paid by the employer or from 25 any fund or other arrangement operated on behalf of the employer, direct to the employee".). It was argued bycounselfor the appellant that, sincein sub-section

(1)of section 17 there is express reference to 30 the right to compensation for redundancy under a collective agreement, the Industrial Disputes Court hadjurisdiction to deal with the matter before it in the present instance. It is useful to refer, also,in order to complete, as much 35 as it is reasonably necessary for thepurposes of this case, the picture of the relevant and interrelated legislativeprovisions, to section 18 and subsection

(3)of section 16of Law 24/

1. 128 Section 18 reads as follows:- 5 "
2. Διά τους σκοπούς τοΰ παρόντος Νόμου, έργοδο­ τούμενος είναι πλεονάζων ότανή άπασχόλησίς του έτερματίσθη διά λόγους άλλους τών καθοριζομένων έν τη πρώτη επιφυλάξει τοΰ εδαφίου

(3)τοΰ άρθρου 16:(α) διότι ό εργοδότης έπαυσεν ή προτίθεται νά παύ­ ση νά διεξάγητήν έπιχείρησιν έν τη οποίαόέρ­ γοδοτούμενος άπησχολεΐτο· ή 10 15 20 (β) διότι ό εργοδότης έπαυσεν ή προτίθεται νά παύση νά διεξάγη έπιχείρησιν είς τόν τόπον όπουό έργοδοτούμενος άπησχολεΐτο: Νοείται δτι το Διαιτητικδν Δικαστήριον δυ­ νατόν νά άποφασίσηδτι αλλαγή τοΰ τόπου απα­ σχολήσεως δέν προκαλεί πλεονασμόν δταν, κατά την γνώμην τοΰ Διαιτητικοΰ Δικαστηρίου, εΐναι λογικον ώς προς τον έργοδοτούμενον ό όποιος διεκδικεί πληρωμήν λόγφ πλεονασμοΰ νά άναμένηται όπως Ο έργοδοτούμενος ούτος συνέχιση τήν άπασχόλησίν του είς τόν νέον τόπονάπασχολήσεως- ή (γ) ένεκα οιουδήποτε τών ακολούθων άλλων λόγων σχετιζομένων προς τήν λειτουργίαν της επιχει­ ρήσεως: 25 30 (

1. i)εκσυγχρονισμού, μηχανοποιήσεως ή οίασδήποτε άλλης αλλαγής είς τάς μεθόδους παραγωγής ή οργανώσεως ή οποία ελατ­ τώνει τον αριθμόντών άναγκαιούντων έργοδοτουμένων (Η) αλλαγών εις τά προϊόντα ή τάς μεθόδους παραγωγής ή ε'ις τάς αναγκαίουσας είδικότητας τών έργοδοτουμένων (iii) καταργήσεως τμημάτων· (
2. iv)δυσκολιών είς την τοποθέτησιν προϊόντων εις τήν άγοράν ή πιστωτικών δυσκολιών* 35 (ν) ελλείψεως παραγγελιών ή πρώτων υλών (
3. vi)σπάνεως μέσωνπαραγωγής* και (νϋ) περιορισμοΰ τοΰ όγκου της εργασίαςή της επιχειρήσεως". 129 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTE 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. ("18. For thepurposes of this Law, an employee is redundant when his employmenthas beenterminated for reasons otherthanthose specified in thefirst pro­ viso to sub-section

(3)of section 16 of this Law:(

1. a)because the employer has ceased or intends to cease tocarry onthebusiness inwhich the employee was employed; or (
2. b)because the employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on business in theplace in whichtheemployee was employed: 5 10 Provided thattheTribunal may decidethat change of place of employment does not causeredundancywhen,in theopinionof the Tribunal, it is reasonable, in respect of the employee claiming a redundancy payment, 15 to expect that employee to continue his em­ ploymentin thenew place of employment;or (
3. c)because of any of thefollowing other reasons concerned with the operation of the business: (
4. i)modernization, mechanization or any 20 other change in methods of production or of organization which reduces the number of employees necessary; (
5. ii)changes in products or productionme­ thods or in theskills needed on thepart 25 of employees; (
6. in)closing of departments; (
7. iv)marketing or credit difficulties; (
8. v)lack of orders or raw materials; (
9. vi)scarcity of means of production;and 30 (vii) contraction of the volume of work or business".). Subsection

(3)of section 16 reads as follows:"

(3)Toποσόν τηςπληρωμήςλόγφπλεονασμού υπολο­ γίζεται συμφώνωςπροςτόνΤέταρτονΠίνακα: 35 Νοείται οτι Οταν, ώς αποτέλεσμα τοΰπλεονασμού, έχη μειωθη ή κατά τήν γνώμην τοΰ Διαιτητικού Δικα130 5 10 στηρίου ενδέχεται νά μειωθη το κόστος τηςπαραγωγής ή λειτουργίας τής επιχειρήσεως ώς συνόλου ήτοΰκλά­ δου της επιχειρήσεως εις τόν όποιον προεκλήθη πλεο­ νασμός ήθάδιατηρηθηουσιωδώς τό αυτόή θάέπιτευχθη ύψηλότερον έπίπεδον παραγωγής ή κατά τήνγνώμην τοΰ Διαιτητικού Δικαστηρίου ενδέχεται νά διατη­ ρηθηή έπιτευχθη διάμικρότερου αριθμούέργοδοτουμένων, τό ποσόν τής λόγφ πλεονασμού πληρωμής υπολο­ γίζεται έν άναφορφ προς τόν Πρώτον Πίνακα, ώς έάν ήπληρωμή άπετέλει άποζημίωσινέπιδικασθείσανείςέρ­ γοδοτούμενον δυνάμειτοΰάρθρου3: 15 Νοείταιπεραιτέρω Οτι,ΟταντόΔιαιτητικονΔικαστήριον άποφάσίση οτι ό πλεονασμός εμπίπτει εντός της προηγουμένης επιφυλάξεως τοΰ παρόντος εδαφίου, ή περίοδος ή οποία παρέχει τό δικαίωμα διά πληρωμήν λόγφ πλεονασμοΰ είναι εΐκοσιέξ εβδομάδες,ουχίδε εκα­ τόν τέσσαρες εβδομάδες ώς προνοείται ύπό τοΰεδαφίου

(1)τοΰπαρόντος άρθρου". 20 ("

(3)The amount of the redundancy payment shall be calculated in accordance with the Fourth Sche­ dule: 25 30 35 40 Provided that where, as a result of the redundancy, there has been or, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is Ukely to be, a reduction in the cost of production or running of the business as a whole or of the branch of the business in which redundancy .has occurred or substantially the same level of production will be maintained or a higher one will be attained or in the opinion of the Tribunal it is likely to be maintained or attained with a smaller number of employees, the amount of the redundancy payment shall be calcu­ lated by reference to the First Schedule, as if thepay­ ment were compensation awarded to an employee under section 3: Provided further that where the Tribunal decides that a redundancy falls within the preceding proviso to this sub-section the qualifying period for a redun­ dancy payment shall betwenty-sixweeks and not one hundred and four weeks as provided by sub-section

(1)of this section".). 131 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD. Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that sec­ tion 17 of Law 24/67 is only applicable to cases of re­ dundancy "as defined in section 18"; that is correct, but. on the basis of the contents of the Case Stated before us we donotthinkthatitcanbesaid, with any certainty,that the termination of theservices of the appellant for redun­ dancy is not an instance coming within the ambit of sec tion 18. We are, furthermore, of the opinion, that once there arises, undersection 17,inrelationιο the- paymentof com- JΓ pensation for redundancy, as provided ior under a coilec five agreement, thepossibility of making a payment toan employee from the Fund, the calculation of the exaci amount payable totheredundantemployee under the col­ lective agreement is directly related to the application oi 15 a provision of Law 24/67; and,thus,anydispute as tothe mode of the calculation of that amount—such as theone in the present case—is an industrial dispute hi the sense of section 30 of Law 24/67, which, as already stated,de­ fines thejurisdiction of theIndustrial Disputes Court. 20 The last point with which we have to deal is the fact that, by virtue of Law 1/75, above, in a case such as thai of the termination of the services of the appellant for re­ dundancy the provisions of section 17—(which is inPart IV of Law 24/67)—have been suspended in so far as there areconcernedpayments outof the Fund. In our view this was not a sufficient reason for finding that therewas no longer an industrial dispute to be deter­ minedby theIndustrial DisputesCourtinthepresentcase. because the amount payable to the appellant, under the collective agreement, had still tobe determined;of course. to what extent such amount should have been paid, and from what source, was another matter, depending on the construction of theprovisions of thecollective agreement concerned and otherrelevant considerations;and as this is an issue in relation towhich we have not heard any argu­ mentsweleaveitopen. For the foregoing reasons we find that the Industrial Disputes Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter taken before it by the appellant and, therefore, it should 132 25 35 40 proceed to do so under the provisions of the relevant legislation. In viewof thenovelty of theissueraised inthiscasewe shallnot makeanyorder asto thecostsof theproceedings 5 before us. Appeal allowed. 133 1977 Febr. 22 MANOLIS STAVROU v. MOBIL LP GAS (CYPRUS) LTD.