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 fro