Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Madhava Rao, Alladi Kuppuswamy, JJ.
UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER - Respondent
Decided on : 13-10-1977
Important Points
Subject
Industrial Law - Merchant Shipping Act
Act Referred
Headnote
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT - SEAMEN - DEFINITION - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 3(42) - SECTION 150 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - APPLICABILITY - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - HOME-TRADE SHIPS OF LESS THAN TWO HUNDRED TONS - MEMBERS OF THE CREW - ENGAGEMENT OR EMPLOYMENT - AGREEMENT WITH THE CREW - SECTION 100.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a company engaged in exporting prawns, owned two fishing trawlers registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958. The trawlers had a crew of 20 persons, including 12 fishermen. A dispute between the fishermen and the appellant was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute, as it was governed by the Merchant Shipping Act and not the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal overruled the objection and held that it had jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the expression "seamen" as defined in Section 3(42) of the Merchant Shipping Act is not confined only to those who are employed or engaged as members of the crew by entering into agreements under Section 100 of the Act. The court found that the definition of "seamen" includes all "seamen" who have been engaged or employed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and should not be confined only to those with whom an agreement is entered into under Section 100 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the appellant and the fishermen, considering that the dispute was governed by the Merchant Shipping Act and not the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Whether the fishermen were members of the crew of the appellant's trawlers and whether they were employed or engaged as members of the crew under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 3(42) of the Merchant Shipping Act, which defines "seamen," and held that the definition includes all "seamen" who have been engaged or employed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, not just those with whom an agreement is entered into under Section 100. 2. The court found that the definition of "seamen" under the Merchant Shipping Act is broader than the definition under the English Merchant Shipping Act, which includes every person employed or engaged in any capacity on board a ship. 3. The court held that the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the appellant and the fishermen, as the fishermen were "seamen" within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the Merchant Shipping Act and the dispute related to matters connected with or incidental to their employment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal and quashed the order of the Industrial Tribunal. The court directed the Industrial Tribunal to consider whether the fishermen were employed or engaged as members of the crew under the Merchant Shipping Act, in which case the Industrial Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to hear the dispute.
JUDGMENT :
Alladi Kuppuswamy, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment of Madhava Reddy, J. dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, first respondent, the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, overruling a preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the appellant and certain workmen represented by the second respondent-union, referred to it by the Government.
2. The appellant is a company carrying on inter alia the business of exporting prawns. It owns two fishing trawlers weighing 149 tons each, which are registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (referred to in the judgment as the Act). It has on board 20 persons; a skipper, a mate, two engineers, two oil men, two cooks and 12 fishermen. According to the appellant these fishermen also from part of the crew; whereas according to the respondent they are mere fishermen and are not members of the crew; A dispute between the 12 fishermen and the appellant was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for decision as I.D. No. 6 of 1975. u/s 150 of the Act it is provided that where the Central Government is of opinion that any dispute between seamen and the owners of ships exists and such dispute relates to any matter connected with or incidental to the employment of the seamen, the Central Government may constitute a Tribunal and refer the dispute to the Tribunal adjudication. Section 150(9) provides that nothing contained in the Industrial Disputes Act shall apply to any dispute between seamen and the owner of ships in which such seamen are employed. On the strength of this provision the appellant raised a preliminary objection before the Industrial Tribunal that the Industrial Disputes Act has no application and the dispute is liable to be decided only by a Tribunal constituted by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The Industrial Tribunal considered this preliminary objection and by its order dated 6th August, 1975 overruled the preliminary objection and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Tribunal. This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal was not barred by Section 150(9) of the Act. As has already been noticed u/s 150(1) of the Act the jurisdiction to decide a dispute between seamen and the owner of a ship is vested in a Tribunal to be appointed by the Central Government and the Industrial Disputes Act shall not apply to any such dispute by reason of Section 150(9). The expression "seamen" is defined in Section 3(42) of the Act in the following terms:
'Seaman' means every person except a master pilot or apprentice employed engaged as a member of the crew of a ship under this Act, but in relation to Sections 178 - 183 (inclusive) includes a matter.
The contention of the appellant is that the workmen concerned are seamen within the meaning of Section 3(42) of the Act as they are persons employed or engaged as members of the crew of the ship under the Act. The contention of the workmen on the other hand is that they are not members of the crew of the ship. Even assuming that they are to be regarded as members of the crew they are not employed or engaged as members of the crew under the Act so as to come within the definition of "seamen". In support of the contention that the fishermen concerned were members of the crew the appellant relied upon certain documents to show that these 12 fishermen were also regarded as members of the crew. Oral evidence was also let in to show that the twelve workmen who w
