STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD. versus CAPT. S. M. REBELLO & ORS.

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 26-02-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
H 
STEEL INDUSTRIALS KERALA LTD. 
v. 
CAPT. S. M. REBELLO & ORS. 
26th February, 1985 
S. M'l!ll.TAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VAllDAllAJAN, JJ. 
T1r• appointmtnt for a fixed period -Pre-m4/ure termination of services 
of• Uaster of the ship-Whither the "master of a ~hip" Is a ''seaman" 
wftli• tilt .. ra•fng of tilt provlslM• of the Mirchtlllt Shipping Act, 19J8 for 
tte purpose3 o/ entitlement to git /1111 compensation on the termination of his 
11rvitt•, for th• entlrt period of hi• contraet-Sectlons 3 f22), 3 (42), 89, 
101, 103, ilB, )'20, 125, 143, 148, 178 to 183 of the Merchant Shipping Aet, 
1958-Whtther the contract of appointment of a master of a ship and rhe 
own1r Is In the nature of a contract of personal a1rrlc1 and therefore eannot be 
specificall1 enforced. 
The respondent was appointed on October U, 1980 ror a period of 
one year as a "master" or the ship called "M. V. Anastasia" in torms of the 
appointment order under which he was entitled to two months' wages, if the 
was discharged before the completion of bis term. 
The said ship on 
December II, 1980, touched the harbour and thereafter proceeded to Bey. 
pore, Calicut, where the respondent was informed that the ship having been 
sold as a scrap to the appellant company, Steel Industries, Kera la, be should 
handover the ship to the company. 
Consequent upon the sale of the ship, 
by an order dated 20. 12. 80 the services of the.respondent were terminated. 
On December 22, 1980 the respondent wrote a l~tter to the previous owner 
of the ship of having handed over the ship to the appellant company 
On 
24. 12. 80 the respondent moved the Magistrate under section 145 of the 
Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 for payment of necessary wages. 
The Magis· 
trate after considering all the pros and cons of the matter felt that the 
respondent was entitled to get compensation at least equivalent to three 
months' pay calculated at $1800 per month, 
In appeal the High Court of 
Kerala increased the compensation equivalent to one year's wages. 
' 
Allowing the companys' criminal appeal No. 240/82 and dismissing 
the Ma5ter'• appeal No. 6' l /82, the Court 
HELD : 1. 
The Hiah Court has misconstrued the various 1ectio11 of 
tfto Merchant Shipping Act. 1958 and by a strange proceas of reasoning 
arrived at the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to full compen-
sation of one years' wages even if his services were terminated before the 
expiry of bis actual termJ when in fact th.e ship having been treated as a 
I
; 
-
• 
I -1, 
; 
I. 
-
) 
STBEL INDUSTRl.BS v. S. 1'1. REBELLO 
999 
scrap was no longer required and therefore his services had to be dispensed 
with and whea the respondent himself rightly understood the termi of his 
appointment and put bis claim at two months' wages only. (1006H; 1007] 
2.1 The1 e is no pfovision in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 which 
equates a seaman with a master of a ship in regard to the terms and 
conditions or emoluments or mode of discharge or under which a master of 
a ship can get a discharge certificate. 
But under section 143 read with 
section 148 a Master is entitled to three months' wages. [lOOSC-E] 
2.2 A perusal of the relevant sections clearly reveali that the statute 
mates a well knit distinction between a 'seaman' ctnd a 'Master' of the 
ship. 
The definition of ~Master' in sub·section (22) of section 3 docs not 
include a seaman. Sub:section 4 ~ of section 3 clearly shows that a 'seaman1 
cannot in the ordinary sense of the term be equated with a cMaster' but 
for certain specific purposes under sections 178 to 183 it includes a Mastor 
In sub-section (1) of section 180, the word 'Master" has been used for the 
first time but evea here the term has been used not to equate a seaman 
with a master but in quite a different context and subserve a different 
purpose. [1002B, D, E-F, 1003D] 
2.3 
There is no clear provision from which it can be inferred either 
directly or by necessary intendment that a master is also a seaman for the 
purpose of getting compensation if his services were terminated. 
The 
various aub·1ections of section 89 do not at all govern tha terms and condi· 
tions of a 'master' but serve to carve out bis duties at various levels or 
•!ages. 
Section• 101, 103, 108, 119, 120, 125. 132, 143 and 199 of the 
Merchant 
Shipping Act-all those govern the trrms and conditions of a 
1ervice of a seaman and the crew and ba.ve nothing to do with the master 
of a ship. 
It is true that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.