(1987)1987November 27 [DEMETRIADES.J ] INTHE MATTEROFTHEAPPLICATION BY.ETERIA TYPOGRAFIACOSMOS LTD.,.FORANORDEROFMANDAMUS, and INTHEMATTEROFTHEJUDGMENTAND/OR THEORDER OFTHE INDUSTRIALDISPUTES COURT, DATED 17 1.1987 (CivilApplicationNo. 58/87). MasterandServant —IndustrialDisputesTnbunal—Appealfromitsjudgments — Governed by section l2
(13)(e)(ui) of the Annual Holidays with Pay (Amendment) Law. 1973 (5/73)andRule 17oftheRulesintheSchedule to the Regulations of 1968 — The RightofAppeal isconfined toquestions of 5 law. TheIndustnalDisputesTnbunaldismissedtheapplication ofChr. loannou as it considered that she, by her repeated failure to appear before it, had abandoned her case Chr. loannou applied for the re-opening of her case, alleging that the 10 reason she didnotappearatthehearingwasbecauseshehadundergonean operation, she wasbed-ridden and,inanyevent,shehadneverreceived the noticesof her lawyer toappear before theCourt. ThePresidentoftheCourtinexerciseofthepowersgiventohimbysection 30
(3)of the Termination of Employment Law, 1967 (Law 24/67), as amended bysection3oftheTemnination ofEmployment (Amendment)Law, 1973(Law6/73), ordered the re-openingofApplication No.15/85. Jf Theapplicants(respondentsintheproceedingsbefore thetribunal)applied foracasetobestatedasregardstheruling,wherebytheapplication hadbeen re-instated, but the President of the Tribunal refused to state a case on the 2 0 grourd that hisdecision isnotajudgmentinthesenseoftherelevantrulesof Court. Hencethisapplication Held,dismissingtheapplication:
(1)Therighttoappealfromajudgmentof the Industnal Disputes Court isnowgoverned bysection 12
(13)(b)(iii)of the AnnualHolidayswithPay(Amendment)Law1973(5/73)andRule 17ofthe Rulescontained inthe Schedule tothe Regulationsof 1968,which, though made pursuant to the repealed section 12
(2){c) of Law 8/67, continued in force byvirtueof section 7of Law5/73. 486 25 1 C.L.R. In re Cosmos Ltd.
(2)Fromtheprovisions of theLaw statedaliove andRule 17,itisclearthat recourse totheSupremeCourtby way of cas<istatedcanonlybe madeona question of law andthat alitiganthasnorightίοappeal onfindings of fact 5
(3)Inthis case the issue of reinstatementy 5 -i.-?ded onmere facts No allegationwas madebytheapplicantsthatthe '':<'dentmadeanerrorinla*·. inexercising hisdiscretiontoorderthe reinstatement Applicationdismissed with costs Casesreferredto 1 0 Re Gilmore'sApplication[1957] 1All ΕR 796, S and G Colocassides Co Ltd ν President IndustrtralDisputes Court
(1977)1 C L R 59, Tehram andAnother ν Rostron[1971]3 All Ε R 790 Application. *" Application foranorderofmandamusdirectingthePresidentof theIndustrialDisputesCourttoprepareandsendaCaseStatedto theSupremeCourtinrespectofanorderinAppl. No.15/85dated 17.1.
- M. Kyriakides, for theapplicants. 20 Chr.loannides, fortherespondents. L. Georghiadou (Mrs.), for respondent applicant in Appl. No 15/
- Cur.adv. vult. DEMETRIADES J. read the following judgment. This is ar 25 application for an order of mandamus directed against th< President of the IndustrialDisputesCourt,by which thisCourt Η prayed to order the said President to prepare and send a case statedtotheSupremeCourt. Thefacts thatledtothepresentproceedings arethe following: 30 Theparty tothese proceedings, who is Chrystalla loannou, of Paliometocho, and to whom I shall be referring to as the respondent inthese proceedings, filed inthe Industrial Disputes Court(hereinafter referred toas the«Court»)Application No.15/ 85.Intheaffidavit insupportoftheapplicationandtheopposition 35 filedintheseproceedings, itisnot,however, clearwhattheclaim of therespondent was. 487 Demetriades J. In reCosmosLtd.
(1987)Thecase was fixed for hearing before theCourtonanumberof occasions but the respondent did not appear, so, finally, on the 16th June, 1935, her lawyer, because of the non-attendanceof the respondent in Court, asked for leave to withdraw from the case. The Courtdidgivehersuch leave and on theapplication of 5 the present applicants dismissed the application as it considered that the respondent, by her repeated non appearance in Court, had abandoned the case. Onthe 10thJuly, 1986, therespondentapplied totheCourtfor the re-opening of the case, alleging that the reason she did not 10 appear at the hearing was because she had undergone an operation, she was bed-ridden and, in any event, she had never received the notices of her lawyer toappear before theCourt. On the 17th January, 1987, the President of the Court in exercise of the powers given to him by section 30
(3)of the 15 Termination of EmploymentLaw, 1967 (Law 24/67), asamended by section 3 of the Termination of Employment (Amendment) Law, 1973 (Law 6/73), orderedthere-opening ofApplication No. 15/85. By theirapplication tothe Registrar of theCourt,theapplicants £ϋ intimated their wish to appeal by way of case stated against the decision of the President of the Court dated the 17th January, 1987, on the following legal grounds: «Α. Εδικαιούτο τ ο Δικαστήριον Εργατικών Διαφορών να αττοφασίση εττί της αιτήσεως της Αιτητρίας ημ. 25 10.12.1986 και τ η ς ενστάσεως, άνευ ακροάσεως μαρτυρίας εττίτων γεγονότων των ενόρκων δηλώσεων; Β. Ο ι καθιερωμένες και ακολουθούμενες υπό των πολιτικών δικαστηρίων προϋποθέσεις επανεκδικάσεως υποθέσεωνή/και ακυρώσεως αποφάσεων ε'κδο- 30 θεισών λόγω μη εμφανίσεως διαδίκου κατά την δικάσιμον ισχύουν και κατά την άσκησιν των εξουσιώντ ο υ Προέδρου τ ο υ Δικαστηρίου Εργατικών Διαφορών δυνάμει τ ο υ ά ρ . 30
(3)τ ο υ Περί Τερματισμού Απασχο λήσεως Νόμου 24/67,ή ηεξουσία τ ο υ είναι ανεξέλεγκτος 35 και απεριόριστος; Γ. Βαρυνόμενη με τ ο βάρος της αποδείξεως, απέδειξεν η Α ι τ ή τ ρ ι α γεγονότα δικαιολογούντα επανεκδίκασιν τ η ς υποθέσεως; 488 1 C.l R In re C o s m o s Ltd. D e m e t r i a A ^J. Δ. Διατάττον επανεκδίκασιν if\% υποθέσεως τ ο Δικαστήριον Εργατικών Διαφορώνήακησεντην διακριτικήν του ευχέρειαν ορθά επίτων γεγονότων; 5 10 15 («Α. Was theIndustrial DisputesCouitentitledtodecideon the application of the applicant dafe . 10.12.1986 and the opposition, without hearing evidence on thefacts contained inthe affidavits? B. The established and followed by the civil courts prere quisites for theretrialof cases and/orannulmentof judgments delivered for non appearance of a party at the hearing are applicable also in the exercise of the powers of the President of the Industrial Disputes Court under section 30
(3)of the Termination of EmploymentLaw 24/67, orsuch power isnot subject toany controland is unlimited? C. Did the applicant, on whom the burden of proof lied, prove facts justifying retrial of the case? D. Inordering retrial of thecase hasthe Industrial Disputes Court exercised its discretionary power corcectly on the facts?)» 20 The President of the Court dismissed the application on the ground thathisdecision was notajudgment as difined inthe Rules of Court. It is this decision ot the President ot the Court that is challenged today by the applicants. The issue that calls for decision in the present proceedings is 25 whether there is a right by a party to an application before the Industrial Disputes Court to apply to its President to state a case after'a ruling is given ininterlocutory proceedings. Counsel for the applicants submitted that the Ruling of the Court by which reinstatement of Application No. 15/85 was 30 ordered was ajudgment or decision within the meaning of Rules 10 and 17 of theRules of Courtmadeby virtue ofsection 12 ofthe Annual Holidays with Pay Law, 1967 (Law8/67),as amended by Law 6/73. Imustheresay thatIcannotsee how Rule10canbeof anyhelp 35 to counsel as regards the meaning of the word «decision». In his effort topersuade the CourtthattheRuling of the Presidentof the Industrial Disputes Court was a «judgment» or «decision» within the meaning of Rules 10 and 17, he relied on the definition given 489 Demetriades J. In re C o s m o s Ltd.
(1987)tothesewords inRoudinLawDictionary,2nded.,atp. 175,under the word «judgment» and Black's Law Dictionary (Revised), 4th ed.,undertheword «decision». Hefurther relied onthecase of Re Gilmore's Application, [1957] 1All E.R. 796 and theCyprus case of S. & G. Colocassides Co. Ltd. v. President IndustrialDisputes 5 Court,
(1977)1C.L.R. 59. Counsel appearing for theIndustrial Disputes Court, as well as counsel for the respondent, submitted that as section 30 of Law 24/67, as amended, gave absolute discretion to the President of theCourttodeal afresh with acase orreviewanyjudgment onany 10 payment made out of the Fund,the Supreme Court cannot deal with the facts of a case tried by the Court.They further submitted that an interlocutory order of the Court cannot be made the subject of a case stated. Let us first see when and \inder what circumstances the 15 judgment of the Court can be challenged before the Supreme Court. This right was given to a party to litigation before theIndustrial Disputes Courts by section 12
(2)(c)of Law 8/67, which read: «
(2)Οι δυνάμει τ ο υ π α ρ ό ν τ ο ς άρθρου, εκδιδόμενοι 20 Κανονισμοί θ α περιλαμβάνωσι - (γ) πρόβλεψιν δι έφεσιν εξ οιασδήποτε α π ο φ ά σ ε ω ς του Διαιτητικού Δικαστηρίου εις το Ανώτατον Δικαστήριον βάσει οιουδήποτε λόγου συνεπαγομένου νομικόν σημείον μόνον, γενομένην δι' υπομνήματος 25 (case stated) εντός είκοσι και μιας ημερών α π ό της ημέρας της αποφάσεως» («
(2)Regulations made underthissection shall include- (c)provision for appeal from any judgment of the Tribunal to the Supreme Court on any ground involving only a 30 question of law, made by way of case stated within twentyonedays of the date of the judgment») This provision was repealed and replaced by means of section 12
(13)(b)(ii) of the Annual Holidays with Pay (Amendment)Law, 35 1973 (Law 5/73), which is identical to the above, but as no new 490 1 C.L.R, In re C o s m o s Ltd. Demetriades J. Regulations were made under Law 5/73, the Rules contained in the Schedule to the Regulations of 1968 continued to be in force by virtue of section 7 of Law 5/73. Rule 17 of the Rules of Court reads:o «Έφεσις δι' υπομνήματος. l 10 15 20 25 30 17.
(1)Διάδικος επιθυμών να εφεσιβάλη απόφασιν τ ο υ Διαιτητικού Δικαστηρίου δΓ υπομνήματος δυνάμει του άρθρου 12
(2)(γ) τ ο υ περί Ετησίων Αδειών μετ' Απολαβών Νόμου τ ο υ 1967, δέον όπως, εντός 21 ημερών από της τοιαύτης αποφάσεως, υποβάλη έγγραφον αίτησιν τ ω Πρωτοκολλητή, εκθέτων ά μ α και τ α νομικά σημεία εφ' ων στηρίζει την έφεσίντ ο υ .
(2)Το υπόμνημα συντάσσεται συμφώνως τ ω Τύπω 5. Ο Πρόεδροςδέονόπως υπογράψη και κατάθεσητ ο ύ τ ο π α ρ ά τ ω Πρωτοκολλητή εντός 14 ημερών από της λήψεως υπό τ ο υ Πρωτοκολλητού της δυνάμει της π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ο υ
(1)τ ο υ παρόντος Κανόνος γενομένης αιτήσεως.
(3)Ο εφεσιβάλλων δι' υπομνήματος διάδικος δέον όπως, εντός 3 ημερών από της λήξεως της εν τ η π α ρ α γ ρ ά φ ω
(2)τ ο υ παρόντος Κανόνος καθωρισμένης προθεσμίας, αποοτείλη ή παραδώση τ ο ύ τ ο εις τον Αρχιπρωτοκολλητήν τ ο υ Ανωτάτου Δικαστηρίου, αποοτείλη δε t O|ja ,ι^αι γνωοτοποίησιν προς τον _ αντίδικον ήτους α ν τ ι ^ ο υ ^ , ομού μετ'α ν τ ι γ ρ ά φ ο υτ ο υ υπομνήματος.
(4)Το Ανώτατον δικαστήριον θα 9ποφασίση τ ο νομικόν σημείον το εγειρόμενον υπό τ ο υ υποβληθέντος δυνάμει τ ο υ παρόντος Κανόνος υπομνήματος και θα επιοτρέψη την υπόθεσιν εις τον Πρόεδρον, ομού μετά της εττ' α υ τ ο ύ γνωμοδοτήσεως τ ο υ , ή θα εκδώση διάταγμα κατά τ ο δοκούν. («CasedStated. 35 17.-
(1)Any party wishing to appeal against a judgment of the Industrial Disputes Court by way of case stated under section 12
(2)(c)of the Annual Holidayswith Pay Law, 1967, must, within twenty-one days of the date of judgment, file a 491 Demetriades J . I n reCosmos Ltd.
(1987)written application to the Registrar, stating, atthe same time, the issues of law on which he bases hisappeal.
(2)The case stated isprepared inaccordance with Form 5. The President mustsignand fileitwiththeRegistrarwithin 14 daysofthedateofreceivingbytheRegistraroftheapplication 5 made under paragraph
(1)of the present Rule.
(3)The party appealing byway of case stated must, within 3 daysfrom the expiration oftheperiod defined in paragraph
(2)of the present Rule, send it or deliver it to the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, and, at the same time,send 10 a notification to his opponent or opponents, together with a copy of the case stated.
(4)TheSupreme Courtwilldecide the legalissueraised by the case stated submitted under the present Rule and will lemit the caseto the President, togetherwithitsopinion on it, 15 orwili issue any other order that itmaydeem fit.») From the provisions of the Law stated above and Rule 17,itis clearthatrecoursetotheSupremeCourtbywayofcasestatedcan only be made on a question of law and that a litiganthas noright to appeal on findings of fact. 20 Was there any question of lawraised by the present applicants before the President of the Court? As it appears from the documents before me, including the record ofthedecision of the President by which he ordered the reinstatement of the case, no question of law was raised before him and that he decided the 25 reinstatement on mere facts. No allegation was made by the applicants thatthe President madean errorinlawinexercisinghis discretion toorderthe reinstatement. Useful guidance on the issuecan be drawn from the judgment of Lord Denning M.R. in Tehraniand another v.Rostron, [1971] 30 3 AllE.R. 790, where itwas heldthat«fhe provision ofSch 7,para 11
(4)ofthe 1968Actthatthe judgment of quartersessionsshould be 'final' didnot exclude a right of appeal from quarter sessionson a point of law, and an appeal could be by way of case stated, because recent 35 authorities established the principle that when Parliament stated that an inferior court's decision was to be 'final', the impress of finality was given on condition that the decision was reached in accordance with law, and if a tribunal went 492 1 C.L.R. In re t,u»·..- Demetriades J . wronginlawand theerrorappeared ontheface ofthe record, the High Court would interfere by certiorari or a declaration notwithstanding a provision asto finality». This extract, also, answers the submission of counsel for the Court andthe respondents. Inthe result, I find that inthecircumstances the President ofthe Courtwasright inrefusing tostateacasetotheSupreme Courtas no question of law arose before him. The application is,therefore, dismissed with costs. Application dismissed withcosts. 493