2. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on the complaint of respondent No. 1 under section 145 read with section 143 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 by which the petitioner company was directed to pay certain sum towards the wages of respondent No. 1 along with interest and costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

3. Firstly it was contended by Counsel for the petitioner that when an application is made by a seaman to the Magistrate, the same is to be decided in a summary way, and therefore, according to him, the procedure prescribed for summary trial in the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable to such application under section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Merchant Shipping Act) and since in the instant case the judgment was pronounced by a Judge who had not heard the matter, or in other words, a Judge who heard the matter was different from the Judge who decided the matter, according to him, the trial is vitiated.

4. This submission cannot be accepted because the right given to a seaman or apprentice under section 144 of the Merchant Shipping Act to recover his wages is a civil right and the forum through which he could make this recovery is the Metropolitan Magistrate. Every matter dealt with by the Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be considered to be a criminal matter or criminal trial when Metropolitan Magistrates are empowered to deal with certain matters under the Acts like Merchant Shipping Act. Power is conferred upon Metropolitan Magistrates to try not only cases under Criminal Procedure Code, but also under those special Acts and, therefore, all the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are not automatically attracted in such matters.

5. It appears from the wording of section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act that the legislature wanted and intended to provide speedy remedy for seaman or apprentice for recovering their wages by a separate forum quickly and speedily and that legislature did not want seaman or apprentice to file civil suit and wait for years together for result of the same. It is for this reason that the Metropolitan Magistrates are empowered over matters pertaining to recovery of wages by seaman or apprentice under section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act.

6. It is true that section 145 empowers the Magistrate to decide the application in a summary way. However, there is basic difference in this litigation under section 145 and criminal cases which Magistrate is empowered to decide summarily or by adopting procedure for summary trial. Obviously, procedure for summary trial is not applicable for application under section 145 because firstly, it is not a criminal case or trial. Secondly, employee is not referred to as accused and thirdly, no punishment is prescribed for non-payment of wages under any of the provisions of the Act or section 145 of this case. Therefore, contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that proceeding under section 145 of the Merchant Shipping Act were summary trial, cannot be accepted. There is no illegality if one Magistrate hears the application under section 145 and other Magistrate i.e. his successor pronounces the judgment. The argument raised in this regard by the Counsel for the petitioner is required to be rejected.

7. The second and most important question raised by the Counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was not a ship registered in India or registered under the Merchant Shipping Act and secondly, that ship never touched Indian port and, therefore, according to him, provisions of Merchant Shipping Act cannot be applicable so as to enable respondent No. 1 to file application under section 145. My attention was drawn to relevant provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. On the face of it, there appears to be strong basis for this submission. However, cl