LexIBRAHIM AND ORS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
306
IBRAHIM AND ORS.
, ..
STATE OF WEST .BENGAL AND ANR.
November 21, 1967
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, ss. 191(1) (a) and (b),
194(b) and
( e), and 436--Seamen entering into agreement with shipping company to
navigat,e its ship for specified period-dispute arisinR while ship in dock
on a voyage as to amoun1t of bazar money payable to seamen-on non-
pay1nent of a1nount clain1ed se(unen leaving ship which could not therefore
sail-1vhether seamen liable for desertion.-Reasonable cause for leaving
ship-when relevant.
The ten appellants were ratings who had entered into an agreement
\Vith a shipping company in Cochin to navigate one of its ships bet\v~en
December 11, 1963 and Juno 10, 1964.
During this period, after they
had performed some voyages and while the ship was berthed in Calcutta
port, a. dispute arose between the appellants and the Company as to the
payment of bazar money (victualling charges) which the ratings were
allowed according to a custom obtaining in
merchant shipping.
The
appellants claimed Re. 1 per day while the Company normally paid only
0.6'.C P. per day, The dispute was referred to the Shipping Master, Calcutta,
\.\'hereupon rneejings took place l::·~tween
representatives
of
the
Com-
pany and the appellants before the Shipping Master and an agreement
was reached according to which the Company promised to pay the amount
claimed.
However, it was not clear whether this payment was to be
made before the commencement of the next voyage or on the termina-
tion of the agreement.
As the appellants were in fact not paid before
the commencement of the voyage, upon the instigation of certain Jabour
leaders they left the vessel in a body and, as a result, the ship could not
leave port at the appointed time of sailing.
The appellants were there-
after prosecuted for deserting the ship and were convicted under s. 19 I
(1 )(al and (bl ands. 194(b) and (<e) read withs. 436 of the Merchant
Shipping Act. 1958.
Their revision applications to the High Court were
summarily rejected.
In the appeal to this Court by special leave, it was contended on be-
half of the appellants (a) that there was no desertion on their part, and
(b) that even if they be held to 'have left the ship, they were protected
by the fact that there was reasonable cause for absenting themselves at
the time of the sailing of the ship.
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
( il The gist of desertion is the existence of animus not to return to
the ship or, in other words, to go against the agreements under which the
en1ployn1ent of seamen for Sf'a vovagr<; generally take olace.
The 'vav
the appellants had acted clearly showed that they were using the weapon
of strike with a view to force the issue with their employers and were
not intending to return to the vessel unless their demandiS \Vere acceded
to immediately. It was therefore Je~itimate to infer that they were brealc-
ing the agreement with the company 'Mhich was to keep the ship in voy-
age up 10 June 10, 1964, and this wa< rendered impossible by all
the
nppellants
abscntin~ themselves.
Their action
therefore
amounted
to
desertion. r309 B. F-G]
.A
•
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
IBRAHIM v. w. BENGAL (Hidayatullah, J.)
307
Moore v. Canddian Pacific Steamship Co., [1945] 1 All B.R.
128;
The West-morland, {1841) 1 Wm. Rob 216; referred to.
(ii), Section 191(1) is in two parts.
The first part deals wi:h only
desertion and therefore, if desertion was proved, the penalty which the
law provides under the .A.ct was duly incurred. There is no excuse against
desertion because reasonable cause which is indicated in the sam~ section
is included in cl. (b) and not in cl. (a). In the prosent case there was
not that sufficient cause even for the purpose of cl. (b) of s. 191(1). Tue
dispute was already . before tbe Shipping Master,
meetings hwl taken
place and minutes had been rec·.:ir<led.
Th~ log book ..:it the shipping
Company and other records would clearly show the amount of money
due to the appella'Ots.
The settlement of the claim could well have wait-
ed till the completion of the voyage and there was machinery in law for
the enforcement of a demand. [309 H; 310 D-FJ
The law has chosen to regard the duties of seamen as of paramount
importance and has therefore, in addition to the ordinary liabilities which
arise under the general law, added a penalty of imprisonment for abseExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.