The term 'proceeding' in S. 146 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 includes an interlocutory application in a suit already instituted by a third party, and a seaman can seek recovery of wages by way of such an application, provided the conditions in S. 146 are satisfied.

NAINAR SUNDARAM, J.

1. The appellant is a third party to the suit C.S. No. 110 of 1981 on the file of the Original Side of this Court. The first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 to 4 are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,40,015.83 due to it from the defendants. The plaintiff claimed a charge for the aforesaid dues over the vessel ‘M.V. Fareeda’. We find that there was a compromise and the suit was decreed as per the compromise on 13th March, 1981. A reading of the relevant clauses in the decree in the suit leaves no room for doubt that the paramount charge of the plaintiff over the vessel ‘M.V. Fareeda’ was countenanced; the said charge has been held to remain in force till the decree dues are paid in full, and the plaintiff has been given the liberty to execute the decree against the said vessel charged. The plaintiff itself has been appointed as a Receiver of the vessel by order passed in Appln. No. 949 of 1982. The plaintiff took out Appln. No. 2283 of 1982 and direction has been given by this Court on the Original Side to the plaintiff to take steps to sell the vessel and report the matter to the court by order, dated 9th July, 1982. The appellant claims as follows: He was appointed as the Chief Engineer of the vessel ‘M.V. Fareeda’ owned by the first defendant, by the letter of appointment, dated 4th

September, 1981. The appointment was with effect from 7th September, 1981. As per the terms of the appointment, his salary was fixed at Rs. 5,000 per month, entertainment allowance of Rs. 2,000 per month and a welfare allowance of Rs 2,000 per month-all tax free. The appellant was paid salary and other allowances referred to above till 18th October, 1981. Thereafter, the first defendant did not pay the salary and other allowances. The appellant sent his resignation on 3rd November, 1981. The first defendant did not arrange for his ‘signing off’ and relieve him. The first defendant has not paid the amounts due to the appellant and has not accepted his resignation and arrange for the ‘sign off’ till 17th May, 1982. The papers of the appellant were with the Master of the vessel. Hence, the appellant could not join any other employer also. In the meanwhile, the appellant came to know about the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,40,015.83, and hence the appellant caused a notice to be issued through his counsel on 5th May, 1982, to the plaintiff with copies to the defendants, calling upon the plaintiff to permit the appellant herein to ‘sign off’ under protest within a week from the date of receipt of the said notice and hand over the papers of the appellant available in the vessel, and to intimate the appellant as soon as the sale proceeds of the vessel were deposited into court and also to intimate to the court as the Receiver, about the appellants claim. The plaintiff, after receipt of the notice, has sent a reply through its lawyer on 11th May, 1982. Ultimately, the first defendant addressed a letter to the shipping Master, Tuticorin, on 13th May, 1982, requesting the shipping Master to arrange to ‘sign off’ the appellant and marked a copy of it to the appellant. The appellant was permitted to ‘sign off’ on 17th May, 1982, by the Shipping Master, Tuticorin Port Trust. The appellant is entitled to the salary and allowances at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per month as per the details given above, for a total period of seven months, and the dues amount to Rs. 63,000 recoverable from the defendants and this amount represents the salary payable to a crew of the vessel, viz. , the appellant herein. The appellant has got a first charge over the assets of the first defendant, including the vessel ‘M.R. Fareeda’. Even though the plaintiff is a charge decree-holder, yet, the appellants salary and other dues will have to be settled before the plaintiff could appropriate the sale proceeds of the vessel.

2. On the basis of t