The main legal point established in the judgment is that a master of a ship has the right to claim wages and other emoluments under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, and may seek legal recourse for illegal termination of employment.

T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J.

Preliminary;

1. Crl.R.P. No. 435 of 1981 arises out of the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court of Kozhikode on three petitions presented by the Master of Ship - 'M. V. Anastasis' - a merchant ship registered, in Panama ant at the relevant time anchored at the Beypore Harbour, Calicut. The petitions hat been filed under S.145 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (the Act for short) read with section: 148 of the Act. The first respondent in the said petition was the representative of the owners of the ship, Mr. E. Zouppas, the second respondent the Steel Industrials Kerala Limited and the third respondent M/s. Maritime Service (P) Ltd.; Cochin, am agent for the vessel for the purpose of transacting business with Port authorities and customs officials.

Facts:

2. M. V. Anastasis is a Panamian ship owned by M/s. E. Peso Maritime Co. and managed by M/s. Aster Maritime Inc; Piraeus World Link Shipping (Pvt.) Ltd. is their representative in this country.

3. By communication dated 22-10-1980, a photostat copy of which is marked as Ext. P1 in the proceedings, Captain S. M. Rebello, the petitioner herein, and in the count below was appointed as Master of Vessel. This had specified that the appointment was for a period of one year but he should willing to accept a transfer to any vessel owned or operated by the company. In pursuance of this the petitioner took change of the vessel at Tuticorin on 24-10-1980. As per the appointment terms the petitioner was entitled to a monthly consolidated salary of 1800 U.S. Dollars and also for three days' leave wages per month. The period of service commenced from 23-10-1980.

4. As Master, the petitioner took the Vessel from Tuticorin to Calcutta via, Colombo. After unloading cargo there under instructions from the owners, the ship proceeded to Cochin. At Cochin the petitioner received a message from the owners to proceed to Beypore, Calicut for scrap. On 11-12-1980 the petitioner took the vessel to Beypore anchorage at 11 p.m. The nest day Mr. Zouppas the representative of the owners, the first respondent came to the ship and obtained the ship's documents and connected papers from the Master. The petitioner was then informed that the vessel was about to be sold for scrap to M/s. Steel Industrials Kerala Limited (SILK) through the Metal Scrap Trading Corporation, Calcutta (MSTC). SILK is a Government of Kerala undertaking engaged in acquiring old ships for breaking and selling the steel scrap and MSTC is a Central Government Company acting as analysing agents for import and allotment of old ships. On the request of the first respondent, the petitioner moved the Vessel to Beypore Inner Harbour and beached it there on 18-12-1980. By notice dated 20-12-1980 photostat copy of which is Ext. P2 the first respondent informed the petitioner of the termination of his employment. The petitioner received the notice and expressed his willingness to accept such termination by an endorsement made on the back of the notice (copy of the endorsement being Ext. P2(a) on certain conditions like payment of further two months' wages, receipt of expenses for going back to Bombay etc.

5. On 21-12-1980 when the notice of termination was served on the petitioner, he had completed one month and 28 days of active service in the ship. The Wages and other dues to the petitioner as per the contract of employment had not been given to him.

Petitioner's contentions:

6. According to the petitioner, there was no valid termination of the petitioner's services. The first respondent did not care to settle the accounts of the petitioner even though requested by him to do so. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner was forced to approach the Magistrate's Court under S.145 of the Act read with S.148 of the same.

7. In C. M. P. No. 1273 of 1980 the petitioner has stated that for the period during which he was in active service in the ship he was entitled to a sum of U.S. Dollars 3828 as wages. In