S.P. Talukdar, J. - (1.) Grievance of the petitioner as ventilated in the writ application relates to alleged illegality and arbitrariness on the part of the respondent -authorities in the matter of payment of arrear salaries, wages, overtime allowances etc. in favour of the writ petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner had been working as Seaman by signing for 12 months to 18 months on Articles of Agreement in different jobs under Shipping Corporation of India. This was during the period from April 1978 to 1994. On 2nd September, 1994 he signed the Articles of Agreement on the vessel M.T. Dada Bhai Nauraji before the Shipping Master at Calcutta. The vessel anchored at Madras Port on 2nd November, 1994. The petitioner having fallen sick was compelled to sign off. He was admitted in Nursing Home and was under treatment till 4th November, 1994. Since he was not allowed to join the ship, he came to Calcutta on 12th November, 1994. He was not paid any subsistence allowance. 13th November, 1994 being a holiday, the petitioner reported at SCI Office on 14th November, 1994. On 28th November, 1994, he was declared fit by Dr. P.K. Banerjee and on the same day he was ordered by the SCI to vacate his hostel, 'Nabik Griha'. Though SCI authorities were under obligation to pay for his hostel accommodation etc., it had to be done by him. On 10th February, 1995, the petitioner filed an application being C.O. No. 23193 (W) of 1995 alleging arbitrariness on the part of the authorities for non payment of wages etc. Learned Court by order dated 10th February, 1995 directed filing of an affidavit. The petitioner was directed by the Learned Court to withdraw the amount alleged to have been deposited by the SCI with the Government Shipping Master, Calcutta. The petitioner found that an amount of Rs. 9,000/ - had only been deposited by the S.C.I. on his account instead of his dues of more than Rs. 40,000/ -. The petitioner withdrew the same under protest. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 7th May, 1997 with a direction upon the respondent -authorities to release all legitimate dues of the petitioner and further direction for allotment of short Voyage. Since the said order dated 7th May, 1997 was not duly complied with, a contempt application was filed and learned Court by order dated 19th December, 1997 directed issuance of show cause notice. By order dated 5th February, 1999, the learned Court disposed of the contempt application with direction upon the respondent -authorities to comply with the order dated 7th May, 1997. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Medical Officer of the SCI and in the event of issuance of certificate of fitness in his favour, the respondent -authorities were to allot him ship in SCI Voyage. The petitioner was, thereafter, medically examined and was found fit. The SCI authorities continued to remain indifferent thereby compelling the writ petitioner to send an advocate's letter. On 10th May, 1999, the petitioner was selected for Voyage and was again directed to appear before the nominated Medical Officer for medical check up and examination for pathological test. On 19th May, 1999, the petitioner signed on the Articles of Agreement in the vessel M.T. Vashaveshwara. The petitioner joined vessel on 28th May, 1999. He signed off on 12th December, 1999. On 2nd September, 2000, the petitioner was selected for Voyage in another vessel M.V. Rishikesh which was scheduled to go abroad. In October/November, 2000, he signed off from the said vessel. Dispute regarding overtime was raised by the Seamen's Union. The petitioner approached the respondent -authorities demanding justice. In absence of proper and positive response, the petitioner approached this Court with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) Respondent No. 2 contested the case by filing affidavit -in -opposition wherein the material allegations made by the writ petitioner had been denied. Such respondent No. 2 claimed that the petitioner is a Seaman within the meaning of Sec. 2(42) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The petitioner was given continuous discharge certificate issued by the Directorate of Shipping through the Shipping Master as required under Sec. 99 of the said Act. The duty of the Shipping Master was to supervise and facilitate the engagement and discharge of Seamen. In terms of Sec. 95, it is the business of seamen's employment office to regulate and control the supply of seamen and to recruit persons for their employment as seamen as well as retirement of seamen from their employment. In terms of Sec. 100 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, it is the duty of the Master of every Indian Ship to enter into an agreement with every seaman whom he engages as a crew from any Port in India. The agreement with the crew is required to contain the duration of intended voyage or engagement of the maximum period of voyage. The relation with a seaman of the Shipping Company in India is regulated by National Maritime Board Agreement as amended from time to time.;