Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J. :- By our Order dated February 12, 1985 we disposed of the above-mentioned two criminal appeals dismissed criminal appeal No. 661/82 and allowed criminal appeal No. 240 of 1982. We now proceed to give the reasons for our Order.

2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass. The appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant-company contending that the respondent was not entitled in law to get full compensation for one year as was granted by the High Court for premature termination of his services. The detailed facts have been given by the High Court and the criminal court and it is not necessary to repeat the same.

3. However, in order to understand the delicate and difficult points raised by the respondent, it may be necessary to give a short history of the circumstances in which the services of the respondent, who was Master of the ship called M. V. Anastasis, were terminated. It is common ground that the respondent was appointed on October 22, 1980 for a period of one year. It is not disputed that on December 11, 1980 the said ship touched the harbour and thereafter proceeded to Beypore, Calicut where the respondent received a message from the owner of the ship that the ship has been sold as scrap to the appellant-company, Steel Industrials Kerala Ltd. Consequent upon the sale of the ship, by an order dated 20-12-80 the services of the respondent were terminated. On December 22, 1980 i.e., two days later, the respondent wrote a letter to the previous owner intimating that, as directed, he had handed over the ship to the appellant-company. A little later on 24-12-80, the respondent moved the Magistrate under S. 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for payment of necessary wages. The Magistrate after considering all the pros and cons of the matter felt that the respondent was entitled to get compensation at least equivalent to three months pay. The respondent was, however, not satisfied with the order of the Magistrate because he claimed a much higher compensation as his services were terminated before completion of one year, for which he was appointed. it is true that the salary of the respondent, calculated at the rate of $1800 per month, amounts to a substantial sum of money if he were to get compensation on a full salary basis for the entire period, which actually he had not served. We are, however, not concerned with the quantam of the compensation which he could get, but the main point for consideration in this case is as to whether or not his claim for compensation for the whole year could be entertained. In one of the letters which he had written to the owner of the ship he had, himself admitted that he was entitled to two months notice pay plus other emoluments. This would show that the contract between the parties as understood by them, was that if the services of the respondent were terminated before completion of the term of one year, he would be entitled to two months notice. The Magistrate, however, took a more liberal view in the matter and held that the respondent was entitled to at least three months notice, and consequently to the emoluments calculated at the rate of $1800 per month, and accordingly ordered payment of three months pay. This is in accordance with S. 143 read with S. 148 of the Act.

4. It is manifest that under the contract the respondent was not appointed to any permanent post which was to last until his retirement but his appointment was really a term appointment for a fixed period.

5. The main contention of the respondent before us was that as he did not get any descharge slip under the provisions of the Act, he was entitled to full wages for the entire term of one year. In this connection, he relied on certain provisions of the Act to which we shall refer hereafter.

6. It appears that the respondent seems to have presumed that he was equal in status to that of a seaman and, therefore, unless a discharge certificat