(1988)1988February23 [PIK1S,J.] STEUOSFINIOTIS, Plaintiff, v. 1.GREENMAR NAVIGATION LIMITED, · 2.THESHIP-SUNDANCE» UNDER CYPRUSFLAG NOWLYINGATTHE PORTOFLIMASSOL, Defendants. (ActionNo. 223/87). Admiralty—Jurisdiction —Seaman's actionfor wagesand other benefits against his employers — Whether section 30 of the Tenvination of Employment Law 24/67 deprived the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to try such an action—Question detennined in the negative —Law24/67 must bereadsubject tothe CourtsofJustice \ 5 Law 14/60, which by section 19 vests exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to tryallAdmiralty actions. This is a seaman' s action for the recovery of wages and other benefits allegedlyduebyhisemployers,theShip«SUNDANCE»and GREENMAR Navigation Limited. The defendants dispute the jurisdiction of the Court. Intheircontention theArbitration Tribunal established under the Termination of Employment Law24/67, and Regulations made thereunder, has sole competence under section 30 totrythe action. 10 Held,
(1)The basiclawprovidingfor the establishment of inferior 15 courts and the vesting of originaljurisdiction inthe several courtsof the Republic, isthe Courts ofJustice Law (14/60).Every other law providing for the establishment of inferior courts such as the Arbitration Tribunal, and theirjurisdiction, must be read subject to the provisions of Law 14/60 including, no doubt those of s.19 that 20 rests exclusive jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to try Admiralty actions.
(2)Thus read, the provisions of s.30 of Law 24/67 exclude admiralty actions coming within the compass of the provisions of p r S .19(a)ofLawl4/60. Orderaccordingly. Cases referred to: Efthymiadou v.Zoudros and Others
(1986)1C.L.R. 341; PhassouriPlantations v. Georghiou
(1982)1C.L.R.766. 114 ^ 1C L R . Ftnlotisv.Greenmar Navigation Preliminaryobjection. Preliminaryobjection bydefendants totheeffect thatthe action brought against them is not amenable to the jurisdiction-of the Supreme Court inthe exercise of itsAdmiraltyjurisdiction. . 5 N. Pirillides, for plaintiff-respondent. , X.Xenopoulos, for defendants-applicants. Cur.adv. vult.\ PIKISJ. read the following judgment. Thisisa seaman's action for the recovery of wages and other benefits allegedly due by his 10 employers, the Ship «SUNDANCE», and GREENMAR NAVIGATION LIMITED. The defendants dispute the jurisdiction of the Court. In their contention the Arbitration Tribunal established under the Termination of Employment Law 24/67, and Regulations madethereunder, hassolecompetence totrythe 15 action. The competence of the Supreme Court inthe exerciseof itsAdmiralty jurisdiction to take cognizance of and try the action was set down for preliminary determination. Ifno power vestsin the Supreme Court the action must necessarily be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 20 Counsel for the defendants argued that s. 30 of Law 24/67* vestsexclusivejurisdictionintheArbitrationTribunaltohearevery dispute arising from the termination of a contract of employment. Hence the action of the plaintiff, founded as itison a breach ofa contract of employment, issolely amenable to the jurisdiction of 25 the Arbitration Tribunal notwithstanding the fact that the contract allegedly breached referred to plaintiff's employment on a ship. Counsel argued that the effect of s.30 was similar to that of s.4(l) of the Rent.Control Law, 1975 (36/75) and byanalogy thereto it should be construed as conferring exclusive jurisdiction to the 30 ArbitrationTribunal toadjudicate upon every disputearising from the breach of a contract of employment. Hedrewattention tothe caseofEfthymiadou v.Zoudros and Others**, decidingthats.4(l) of Law 36/75 had the effect of vesting jurisdiction in the Court established thereunder to take cognizance of every dispute 35 affecting rentcontrolled premises. For the respondent itwassubmitted that the provisions of s.30 -Law24/67 -mustbe readand applied subjecttothoseofs.19{a) of the Courts of Justice Law (as amended) that vest exclusive •(Asamended bys.3ofLaw 6/73) ·*
(1986)1C.L.R.341, 115 pfkisJ. Rufousv.GreenmarNavigation
(1988)jurisdiction intheSupreme Courttotryeveryadmiraltyaction.An admiralty action isdefined bys.l9(a) as every action of a species amenable tothejurisdiction oftheEnglishAdmiraltyCourton the day immediately preceding independence. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of England wasdefined bys.1
(1)of 5 the Administration of Justice Act 1956. In accordance with the provisions of para.
(0)of the aforementioned subsection of the law,a claimbyamemberofthecrewofashipforwagesand other emoluments due to him in virtue of his contract of employment, falls within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. Before 10 tackling the issue of jurisdiction, we might with benefit refer to Phassouri Plantations v. Georghiou* where the combined effect of subsections 1and 2 of s.30 of Law24/67 wasexplored. Itwas held that for claimswithin themonetary limitof itsjurisdiction the Arbitration Tribunal Has sole competence to take cognizance of 15 every action affecting breach of a contract of employment. For claimsabove thatlimitjurisdiction maybeassumed and exercised by the DistrictCourt;providedthatrecoursetoanyone ofthe two Courts precludes reference tothe other. In the case of Efthymiadou, supra, analysis is made of the 20 constitutional basisofthejurisdictionofinferiorcourtsinthesense of Article 152 of the Constitution. Such jurisdiction may be exercised in accordance with the law setting up and regulating courts subordinate to the constitutional hierarchy of judicial power. The basic law providing for the establishment of inferior 25 courtsand the vesting of originaljurisdiction inthe several courts of the Republic, isthe Courts ofJustice Law (14/60). Every other law providing for the establishment of inferior courts, such as the Arbitration Tribunal,and theirjurisdiction, mustbereadsubject to the provisions of Law 14/60 including, no doubt, those of s.19. 30 Thus read, the provisions of s.30 of Law24/67 exclude admiralty actions coming within the compass of the provisions ofs.l9(a)of Law 14/60. This conclusion isalso consonant with the statutory adoption of special rules affecting the formation and breach of seamen's contracts, as wellas thecompensation payable inthose 35 circumstances**. Therefore, the subject matter of the proceedings is solely amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court and appropriate directionswillbegiveninduecourseforthedefinition oftheissues and trialof the action. Order accordingly. *
(1982)1C.L.R.766 "(See, TheMerchantShipping (CaptainsandSeamen) Law. 1963(46/63)). 116 40