LIETUNANT GOVERNAOR Vs. JOY DEV MAJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five writ petitioners were working as seamen. They were mostly engaged in the ships run by the Directorate of Shipping in and around these islands. In 2004 they were asked to exercise their option whether they would be governed by the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 or they would continue to remain to be guided by FR & SR. The petitioners did not have any passenger ship familiarisation course certificate or watch keeping certificate. Although 72 seamen were allow to exercise their option to be governed by the provisions of Merchant Shipping Act. The petitioners also exercised such option. In terms of the provisions of the said Act of 1958 they were to possess those two certificates. The authorities by their memorandum dated February 11, 2004 asked them to produce passenger ship familiarization course certificate as well as watch keeping certificate. However, by subsequent corrigendum issued on February 18, 2004 the authorities withdrew the condition for production of watch keeping certificate. Admittedly, petitioners did not have any of such certificates; even then the authorities accepted their option by observing that they did comply all requirements applicable therefor. Subsequently, they insisted on production those two certificates. Most of the seamen had undergone such course and obtained certificates. Some of them failed to obtain such certificate despite sitting in the examination. Those unsuccessful candidates, however, did not make any complaint therefor. These five writ petitioners (respondents herein), however, insisted that, once the authorities allowed them to opt for being guided by the provisions of Merchant Shipping Act and the authorities accepted such option, subsequent insistence of production of those two certificates could not be foisted upon them. They were disengaged by the authorities. According to them, since 11th March, 2005 they are starving as neither were they engaged in any ship nor they were paid any retention allowance.

(2.) The petitioners initially filed writ petitions including W.P. No. 8132(W) of 2004 inter alia praying for change of option in the changed circumstances.

(3.) The learned Single Judge by an order dated March 11, 2005 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the option once exercised could not be changed in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1958. An appeal was preferred. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, however, asked the authority to consider their representation. Nothing transpired thereafter.