JUDGMENT :

The issue highlighted in this writ petition is regarding the failure of respondents 3 and 4 to comply with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958('MSA' for short) and to act in terms of the agreement executed between Indian National Ship Owners' Association(INSA) and Maritime Union of India (MUI) regarding the wages and other service conditions of seamen. According to the petitioners, the issue ought to be considered by the Tribunal constituted under Section 150 of the Merchant Shipping Act. As the demand in this regard was not acted upon, the petitioners approached this court in W.P.(C) No.15193/2019. That writ petition was disposed of under Ext.P10 judgment with the following directions;

“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the provision contained in Section 150 of the Merchant Shipping Act, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Central Government to take a decision on Ext.P9 representation, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly.”

2. In purported compliance of that direction, the first respondent considered the representation and issued Ext.P11 order, directing the Shipping Master, Chennai to take cognizance of the representation and pass an order under Section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Act within 60 days. Aggrieved, this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

i). To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Exhibit P11 since the same is issued against the provisions of Merchant Shipping Act.

ii). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to constitute a Tribunal under Sec.150 of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to consider the grievance highlighted in Ext.P9 relating to payments under allowances due to the seamen and officers employed in the vessels owned by the third respondent.

iii). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to ensure that the seamen working on board vessels owned by 3rd respondent is paid wages and allowances as provided under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958

iv). To declare that the 6th respondent does not have authority under Merchant Shipping Act to consider the grievances highlighted in Ext.P9 by 1st petitioner union.”

3. Adv.V.B.Harinarayanan, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that Section 132 of MSA has no application to the fact situation, as that provision is applicable only in the case of disputes between individual crew members and the ship owner. According to the counsel, the grievance highlighted in Ext.P9 can be considered only under Section 150 of the MSA. To buttress the contention, reference was made to the language used in Sections 132 and 150 and the definition of 'Seamen' and 'Shipping Master' at sections 3(42) and 3 (46) of the Merchant Shipping Act.

4. Replying to the contentions, Adv.Suvin R.Menon learned CGC submitted that, after the amendment to Section 132, individual disputes up to Rs.10,00,000/-can be decided under that provision. The Seamen or the Union of Seamen can raise a dispute under Section 150 only after exhausting their remedy under Section 132 of MSA. In order to resolve the disputes involved, it is essential to have a careful scrutiny of the following provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. As per section 3(42), 'Seaman' means every person (except a master, pilot or apprentice employed or engaged as a member of the crew of a ship under the Act. Section 3(46) defines a 'Shipping Master' to mean;

“shipping master” means the shipping master referred to in section 11; but in relation to any seaman for the purposes of sections 178 to 183 ((inclusive) means a shipping master appointed,-

(i) for the port at which the seaman entered into, or is believed to have entered into, an agreement, or

(ii) where the seaman did not enter into his agreem