THE CHAIRMAN V. O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST & ORS. versus CAPT. PAUL NADAR BENNET SINGH

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 06-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
THE CHAIRMAN V. O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST &
ORS.
v.
CAPT. PAUL NADAR BENNET SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 11902 of 2018)
DECEMBER 06, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Tuticorin Port (Authorization of Pilots) Regulations, 1979:
regns 2(e), 4, 6 – Appointment – Respondent was appointed in 2008
to the post of Pilot Officer – Appointment was on regular basis with
a condition to serve at least two years as pilot and subject to
qualifying the examination for issue of pilot licence to perform duties
of pilot as per the Regulations, 1979 – Respondent was terminated
from service in 2012 on the ground that he held certificate of
competency (CoC) as Master issued by the Maritime and Port
Authority of Singapore which is not equivalent to the certificate
granted by the Government of India – High Court set aside the
order of termination and directed reinstatement with back wages
giving liberty to the appellant-Port Trust to examine the validity of
the certificates possessed by respondent by providing him an
opportunity of personal hearing – On appeal, held: In the
advertisement issued for the post of Pilot Officer in response to
which the respondent had applied and thereafter was appointed, it
was not indicated that the candidate should have CoC issued by
the authorities recognised by the Government of India – As per the
Regulations, 1979, the qualification of candidates for pilot licence
is to possess CoC as Master (Foreign going) granted by the
Government of India or its equivalent – Neither at the time of the
appointment of the respondent nor subsequently, the appellants-
Port Trust raised any objection that CoC granted by Maritime and
Port Authority of Singapore was not equivalent to the CoC granted
by the Government of India – In fact, in the letter of appointment,
the appointment was subject to condition that the respondent should
qualify in the examination for issue of pilot license to perform duties
in Tuticorin Port Trust – Respondent was allowed to perform duties
– There was no good ground warranting interference with the
impugned order – In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 942
942
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
instant case, the respondent having not worked with the appellants
from 2012 till date, the order of the High Court is modified with
regard to the back wages to the extent that the same is reduced to
40% with effect from 2012 till the date of joining – Service law –
Termination.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  In the clarification sought for by the appellants
in communication dated 15.03.2011, the Deputy Nautical Advisor
clarified that the appellants may be guided by their Port
Regulations. As per Tuticorin Port Regulations, 1979, the
qualification of candidates for pilot license is to possess certificate
of competency as Master (Foreign going) granted by the
Government of India or its equivalent.  Neither at the time of the
appointment of the respondent or subsequently, the appellants-
Port Trust had raised any objection that Certificate of Competency
granted by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore was not
equivalent to the CoC granted by the Government of India. In
fact, in the letter of appointment the appointment was subject to
the condition that the respondent should qualify in the examination
for issue of pilot license to perform duties in Tuticorin Port Trust.
[Paras 12, 13][947-G; 948-B, E-G]
2. In the light of the clarification given by the Deputy
Nautical Advisor, the contention of the appellants that CoC issued
by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore cannot be taken
as a recognized one by the Government of India, has no
substance.  This is all the more so, in the light of letter sent by
appellants dated 29.09.2008 expressing satisfaction over the
experience and knowledge of the respondent in the shipping
operation. The respondent has been allowed to perform duties
and also the fact that in the appointment order it is stated that
the appointment is on  “regular basis”. There is no good ground
warranting interference with the impugned order. Admittedly the
respondent has not worked with the appellants from 2012 till
date. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case,
the order of the High Court is modified with regard to the back
wages to the extent that the same be reduced to 40% with effect
from 2012 till the date of joining. [Paras 14, 15, 16][949-A-D]
THE CHAIRMAN V. O. CHI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.