Loi/ou J ] \ ΠΙΓ. MATIER Oh ARTICLE 146 Oh THL CONSΠ TUTION GEORGHIOS ANDROKl IS \pplit (//if ι ΓΗΕ REPUBLIC Oh CYPRUS. THROUGH ΓΗΕ DISTRICT OFFICER OF LfMASSOL AND/OR THE DISTRICT OFFICFR OF LfMASSOL
paragraph I of Article 146 of the Constitution", as the applicant could not be considered as being in the "public service"
Article 122
of the Constitution, or the Public Service Law, 1967, or as employed in such circumstances as to bring his employment and his termination as matters falling within the domain of Public Law; that this Court, therefore, has no competence in the matter and the recourse ought to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Application dismissed. Cases referred t o : ' Loizou and Another v. CY.T.A., 4 R.S.C.C. 48 at pp. 51, 52; foannou and Others v. Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 279; Paschatidou v. Republic
(1969)3 C.L.R. 297; Pdpakyriakou v. Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 35!. Recourse. Recourse against the decision of the respondents to terminate applicant's services as a Water-guard of the Government Waterworks of Polemidhia-Yetmasoyia. E. Efstathiou, for the applicant. A. Vladimirou, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vuft. 1247 Andruklis >. Republic
(1983)A. LOJZOI' J. read the following judgment. By the present recourse the applicant seeks a declaration of the Court that the decision of the respondents communicated to him by their letter dated 6th October 1981, Appendix "A", by which they terminated his services as a water-guard of the Government 5 Waterworks, of Polemidhia—Yemiasoyta, is null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The applicant by letter dated 18th May 1976 (exhibit ! blue2), applied to the District Officer, Limassol for appointment as water-guard to the said works for the area of Akrounta. to He was a graduate of the elementary school of that village and he was at the time 25 years of age married with one child. He expressed also therein his willingness to purchase a inotor-cycle, if necessary. The District Officer acceded to the application and by his letter dated 21st May 1976, (exhibit I—blue 3) 15 appointed the applicant as from the24th May 1976.on the terms set out therein, which are the following: *'(
- a)Your remuneration will be 233 mils per hour each week. (
- b)If you are ordered to work overtime it will becalculated 20 in accordance with the Government circulars in force relating to Government works. (
- c)You are obliged to have a motor-cycle and your travelling will be paid on the basis of the existing relevant decisions of the Government. 25 (
- d)Your duties will be:(
- i)Examination of the function of meters. (
- ii)Recording of the consumption of water by each land-owner. (iii) Generally you will comply to the instructions 30 of the Inspector of the Government Waterworks and you willcarry out any work that hemay assign to you with regard to the Government Waterworks. (
- e)Generally the terms of your employment, (except 35 those referred to hereinabove), will be those of Government workers except if otherwise decided in the futuie 1248 ^ C.I..R. Androklis \. Republic A. Lolzou J. by the Committee of the Government Waterworks of Polemidhia and Yermasoyta". On the 20th April 1977 new terms of remuneration and of hours of work were agreed and they appear in a letter of that 5 date (exhibit I—blue4)addressedtotheapplicant bythe District Officer in hiscapacity, this time, asthe Chairman of the Waterworks of Polemidhia and Yermasoyia. On the 27th August 1981,the District Officer in his aforesaid capacity wrote to the applicant (exhibit I—blue 8) terminating 10 his services asfrom the 30th September 1981giving as the main reasons that
(1)he had refused to attend for overtime work, whereas the Director of the waterworks Mr. Costas Homatenos had ordered himtoassumesuch dutiestelling himthat the giving of help byhimwasnecessary asthere might have been a broken *5 pipe or something else of a serious nature which called for the immediate closing ofthe supply orthesupply from other sources.
(2)That he had shown no repentance for his said omission. The applicant through his advocate wrote to the District Officer letter dated the 29th August 1981 (exhibit 1—blue 10) 20 to which the District Officer in his capacity as a Chairman of the said Waterworks answered by letter dated 29th September 1981, (exhibit 1—blue 16), which appears to have been communicated to the applicant by a letter dated 6th October, 1981 (exhibit 1—blue 18, or Appendix "A", attached to the appli25 cation). It has been raised bywayof a preliminary objection that this Court does not possess jurisdiction under Article 146 of the Constitution to entertain the recourse of the applicant against the termination of his employment on the ground that the 30 relationship between the applicant and his employers, the respondents, wassuch that it came within thedomain of Private Law and not within that of Public Law. The principles relevant to this issue were dealt with inthecase of Doloros Loizou andanotherv. Cyprus Inland Telecommuni35 cation Authority 4, R.S.C.C. p. 48,where at p. 51it was stated: "The Court is of the opinion that the issue whether a particular workman is regularly employed, as above, is 1249 Λ. Loizou J. Androklis v. Republic
(1983)an issue of fact to be determined in each case on the basis of all relevant circumstances. The period of his service. the security of tenure, the nature of the duties, the view taken of the status of such workman by his employing authority, are all relevant matters to be weighed, together with other pertinent factors, in order to arrive at a proper conclusion'". 5 And at p. 52 "Coming now to the question whether the termination of the services of Applicant No. 2 was validly made, the Court 10 is of the opinion that such termination does not amount to 'exercising any executive or administrative authority"
paragraph 1 of Article 146 inasmuch as Applicant No. 2 not being in the public service,
Article 122
, his employment by Respondent is not 15 a matter of public law but of private law. The Court. therefore, has no further competence in such a matter". These principles have been consistently followed in a number of cases including inter alia those of loaimou and others v. The Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. p. 279: Paschalidouv. The Republic 2.)
(1969)3 C.L.R. 297: Paptikvriakou v. The Republic
(1970)3 C.L.R. 351. Guided by the aforesaid principles and considering the nature and terms of the applicant's employment and in particular the mode o\" payment as well as the express reference to the fact 25 that he was equaled to the status οΐ Government workers. which shows the views taken of his status by his employing authority, I have come to the conclusion that the employment of the applicant and matters relating thereto come within the domain of Private Law and not within that of Public Law and ΓΌ that the termination of his employment docs not amount to '"exercising any executive or administrative authority
paragraph I of Article 146 of the Constitution", as the applicant could not be considered as being in the "public service"
Article 122
of the Constitution, or the 35 Public Service Law, 1967, or as employed in such circumstances as to bring his employment and his terminationas matters falling within the domain of Public Law. The Court therefore has 125;) $ C.L.R. Androklts v. Republic A. Loizou J. no competence in the matter and the recourse ought to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Needless to say that there are other forums with competence to entertain the applicant's grievance on its merits, which I 5 have not done, in view of the result arrived at on the preliminary issue. The recourse is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. Recoursedismissed withno order as to costs. 1251