District Court retains jurisdiction for pre-26-week termination claims not covered by the Termination of Employment Law.

[*73] 1978 October 21

(ARTEMIS, D.J.)

IF THE DISTRICT COURT OF LIMASSOL

Georghios Christofides,

Plaintiff,

v.

Maximos Ltd.,

Defendants.

(Action No. 2645/77).

Master and servant - Claim for arrears of salary - And compensation for termination of employment occurring before completion of 26 weeks service - Not within jurisdiction of Industrial Disputes Court but of the District Court - Sections 3 and 7 of the Termination of Employment Law, 1967 (Law 24/67).

Industrial Disputes Court - Jurisdiction.

Termination of employment - Arrears of salary - Jurisdiction of Industrial Disputes Court.

C. Melas, for the Plaintiff.

St. Houry (Mrs.) for Fr. Saveriades, for the Defendants.

RULING

The following ruling was delivered by:-

ARTEMIS, D.J.: After an application [*74] by the defendants, the Court has now to decide preliminarily to the action, whether this Court has jurisdiction to try this action or whether the Industrial Disputes Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to try this case which allegedly concerns an industrial dispute, pursuant to section 30 of Law 24/67 as amended by section 3 of Law 6/73.

By his action the plaintiff alleges that the defendants, in breach of an employment agreement for work to be carried out in Iran, owe to him unpaid salaries and other agreed benefits, and also that, due to the conduct of his employers, he was forced to terminate his service and as a result he is entitled to damages consequent thereupon.

The defendants by their statement of defence deny his claim and they allege that it was the plaintiff who acted in breach of the agreement.

Section 30 of Law 25/67 as amended by section 3 of Law 6/73 reads as follows:-

###

It is thus clear that the Industrial Disputes Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to try industrial disputes arising out of statutory rights conferred by [*75] the Termination of Employment Law.

An industrial dispute is defined by section 2 of Law 24/67 as:-

###

It is clear from Law 24/67 that this Law regulates the termination of employment by an employer and the compensation payable thereupon to the employee. In such a case the Industrial Disputes Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction and only in such a case does it have jurisdiction to try incidental matters as well. I am, therefore, of the view that the claim of the plaintiff for unpaid salaries and other benefits which is not incidental to any termination of his employment is not a matter falling within the jurisdiction of that Court. But even if it were, the situation would not have changed.

Section 7 of the same Law provides:-

### [*76]

###

This is precisely the allegation of the plaintiff in the statement of claim. Therefore, in addition to the above mentioned claims for arrears of salary and other benefits, we have a claim for compensation for wrongful termination of employment. Normally, this claim would have fallen within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, but from the provisions of section 3 of Law 24/67, it is clear that no statutory rights for compensation are created for an employee who had worked with his employer for a period of less than 26 weeks.

That section reads:-

###

In the present case, the above mentioned termination of employment occurred at a time which is prior to these 26 weeks. It is, therefore, plain that even in this case the Industrial Disputes Tribunal would have no jurisdiction or power to award compensation. It is therefore my judgment, that this is a claim based on contract and/or [*77] common law not covered by the provisions of Law 24/67 and that the District Court of Limassol has jurisdiction to try this action as the agreement was concluded in the District of Limassol.

In the light of the aforesaid, the objection of the defendants/applicants to the jurisdiction of this Court is dismissed and the application fails. The defendants shall pay the costs of this application. Costs to be assessed by the Registrar.

The action is fixed for hearing on 23.1.79.

Application dismissed.

Defendants to pays costs of application.