(1987)1987February 14 [LORIS,J 1 INTHEMATTEROFANAPPLICATIONBYELBEELTD FORLEAVETOAPPLYFORANORDEROFMANDAMUS (ApplicationNo 10/87) Prerogative Orders—Mandamus—Leave to apply for—Principlesapplicable— IndustrialDisputes Court—Appeal from ajudgment of such Court—Itcan onlybemade bywayofcasestatedongroundsinvolvingapoint oflawonly— Pnma facie the questions sought by the applicants to be stated involved «questions of law»—Pnmafaciequestions actuallystated bythe Presidentof *' thesaid Court totallydifferent fromthose he wasrequested to state—Leave to apply for an order of mandamus ordenng the said Court to state the questions raisedby the applicantsgranted The applicant, who was respondent in application 6/85 before the Industnat Disputes Court, appealed by way of case stated against the 1 0 judgment delivered inthesaidapplication Asaresultthe Presidentofthesaid Court stated three questions for consideration by the Supreme Court, but noted that such questions are allegedlytotally different from those the Court was requested to state Asa result the present application for leave to move thisCourtfor anorder ofmandamusordenngtheIndustnalDisputesCourtto 1*> statethe questionsasfiled bytheapplicants was filed Held,grantingleave toapply foranorderofmandamus
(1)Anappeal from ajudgment of the Industnal Disputes Court lies «on any ground involving a point of lawonly»kand itIsmadeby wayof casestated (Section 12
(13)(b)(H) oftheAnnual Holidayswith PayLaw, 1967assetoutbys3of Law5/73) 20
(2)The question in this case iswhether the applicants have made out a sufficiently pnma facie casejustifying thegrantingofthe leave applied for
(3)Beanng in mind the notion of «question of law»the conclusion isthat pnma facie allthe questions, whichthe applicantsrequested the Presidentof the Industnal Disputes Court tostate,are questions of law Moreover, pnma facie the questions actually stated by the President are totally different from thosehewasrequestedto state 25
(4)Consequently and in view of the fact that the applicant has no other remedy the leave applied for willbe granted Applicationgranted Cases referred to Bracegirdlev Gxfey [1947] 1KB 349, 20 30 1 C.L.R. InreElbeeLtd InReHjiCostas
(1984)1CLR 513 Application. Application for leave to move theCourt to issue an orderof Mandamus ordenng the Industnal Disputes Court to state 5 questions fordeterminationbytheSupreme Court Κ Michaehdes,fortheapplicant Cur adv vult LOR1S, J read the following decision The applicant inthe present application isthe respondentinApplication No6/85filed 10 before the IndustnalDisputes Court On29.11 86 theIndustnalDisputesCourtdelivered its reserved judgment intheaforesaid application copy ofwhich isattachedto the present one. On 1012 1986 an appealbywayofcase stated wasfiled bythe 15 respondent,whereby the Industnal DisputesCourtwas requested to state the questions appeanng intneAppendix attached to the present application,fordeterminationby theSupreme Court Theappeal bywayofcase statedwassubmitted pursuant tothe provisions of rule 17
(2)of the Rules of Procedure 1968 (which 20 have been retained andthey arestill applicable by virtue of the _ provisions of s 7 of Law5/73)appeanng inthe Appendix of the Arbitration Tnbunal Regulations 1968, which with theexception of theirAppendix have been abolished by virtue ofs 7of Law 5/ 73 25 On24 12 1986,thePresident of the industnal Disputes Court stated for consideration by theSupreme Court three questions appeanng atpage 7of the case stated (which isappended to the present application) under the heading 'Note by thePresident' thesaid questions stated areallegedlytotally different from those 30 the Courtwasrequested to state The applicant as a result filed thepresent application seeking leave tomove this Courtforthe issue of an Order ofMandamus ordering the Industnal Disputes Court to state the questions appearing inthe Appendix attached to thepresent application 35 fordeterminationbythe Supreme Court 21 LorisJ,
(1987)InreElbe* Ltd My task at this stage is confined in examining whether the material placed before me, makes out sufficiently a pnma facie case justifying the granting of leave to the applicant in order to move this Courtfor theissueof an OrderofMandamus. 5 Itis abundantly clear from theprovisions of s,12
(13)(b)(ii) of the annual Holidays with Pay Law, 1967, as set out in section 3 of Law 5/73) that an appeal from a judgment of the Industrial Disputes Court lies «on any ground involving apointof law only» and itis made by may of case stated. 10 Itis therefore pertinent atthisstage to examine whether prima 15 facie· (a)The questions appearing intheAppendix attachedtothe present application are referring 'to points of law only' as envisaged by s 12
(13)(b)(ii) of Law 5/73. (b)The three questions statea oy iiie Piesident of the industrial Disputes Court,as stated above, are substantially those the court 20 was requested tostate orwhether theseareabsolutely different, as alleged by the applicant. Having examined thematerialbefore me, inthelight of the able address of learned counsel appearing for the ex-parte applicant and beanng in mind the notion of «question of law»set outinthe 25 case-law cited and in particular the dicta in Bracegirdlev. Oxley [1947] 1 ΚΒ. 349 at pp.353 and 358, as well as the dicta in Re HjtCostas
(1984)1 C.L.R. 513 at p.519 (lines 16-28), which I adopt. I have reached the conclusion that prima facie all the questions appearing in the Appendix attached to the present 30 application which the President of the Industrial Disputes Court was requested to state for determination by the Supreme Court are questions of law. Furthermore, Ihold the view, that mere comparison of these questions with the three questions stated by the Court indicates 35 that pnma facie the questions stated by the Court are absolutely different from those he was requested tostate. Consequently, and inview of thefact thattheappellanthas no other legal remedy, I have decided to grant leave to him in order to move thisCourtfor theissueof MandamusOrder,as applied. 40 Such application tobe filed within 14 daysas from to-day. Application granted. 22