UNION CARBIDE INDIA LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HYDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of Madhava reddy, J. , dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of respondent 1, the Industrial Tribunal, Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad, overruling a preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the appellant and certain workmen represented by respondent 2 union, referred to it by the Government.

(2.) THE appellant is a company carrying on, inter alia, the business of exporting prawns. It owns two fishing trawlers weighing 149 tons each, which are registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958, (referred to in the judgment as the Act ). It has on board twenty persons; a skipper, a mate, two engineers, two oil men, two cooks and twelve fishermen. According to the appellant these fishermen also form part of the crew ; whereas according to the respondent they are mere fishermen and are not members of the crew. A dispute between the twelve fishermen and the appellant was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for decision as industrial Dispute No. 6 of 1975. Under S. 150 of the Act it is provided that where the central Government is of opinion that any dispute between seamen and the owners of ships exists and such dispute relates to any matter connected with or incidental to the employment of the seamen, the Central Government may constitute a Tribunal and refer the dispute to the Tribunal for adjudication. Section 150 (9) provides that nothing contained in the Industrial Disputes Act shall apply to any dispute between seamen and the owner of ships in which such seamen are employed. On the strength of this provision the appellant raised a preliminary objection before the industrial Tribunal that the Industrial Disputes act has no application and the dispute is liable to be decided only by a Tribunal constituted by the Central Government and the tribunal constituted by the State Government under the Industrial Disputes Act had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The Industrial Tribunal considered this preliminary objection and by its order, dated 6 August 1975. overruled the preliminary objection and held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to proceed with the adjudication of the dispute. The appellant thereupon filed the writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the|tribunal. This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the jurisdiction of the Industrial tribunal was not barred by S. 150 (9) of the act. As has already been noticed under s. 150 (1) of the Act the jurisdiction to decide a dispute between seamen and the owner of a ship is vested in a Tribunal to be appointed by the Central Government and the Industrial disputes Act shall not apply to any such dispute by reason of S. 150 (9 ). The expression "seamen" is defined in S. 3 (42) of the act in the following terms :

(3.) AS has already been noticed "seaman" is defined as a person employed or engaged as a member of the crew under the Act. Section 100 provides that the master of every indian ship except a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross, shall enter into an agreement (in this Act called the agreement with the crew) in accordance with this Act with every seaman whom he engages in and carries to sea as one of his crew from any port in India. It is admitted that in this case the trawler of the appellant is a home-trade ship of less than two hundred tons gross and hence no agreement is required to be entered into with the seamen engaged as members of the crew and no agreement was in fact entered into. The question for consideration is whether such persons can be said to be members of the crew engaged or employed under the Act. There is no provision of the Act dealing with the engagement, or employment of a member of the crew in respect of home-trade ships of less than two hundred tons gross. It is, therefore, argued on behalf of the respondents that members of the crew of home-trade ships of less than two hundred tons cannot be said to be members of the crew engaged or employed under the act. Sri K. Srinivasamurthy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though there was no agreement with the workmen concerned as no such agreement is required as the ship is less than two hundred tons gross, the respondents are still employed or engaged as members of the crew under the Act. He submitted that the expression "employed or engaged" as members of the crew of a ship under the Act only means that the members of the crew who are employed must be governed by the provisions of the Act and as members of the crew of ships less than two hundred tons are also governed by the provisions of the Act they must be considered as persons employed as members of the crew under the Act. We are inclined to agree with this.