The Shipping Corporation Of India ... vs Mr. Sam S/O. K. J. Julius And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 13070 Bom

                                                                 30 wp12287-22.docx

       Digitally
       signed by
       TRUSHA
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TRUSHA TUSHAR
TUSHAR MOHITE
MOHITE Date:
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       2022.12.16
       15:16:13
       +0530


                                       WRIT PETITION NO.12287 OF 2022

                    The Shipping Corporation of
                    India Ltd.                                    ..... Petitioners

                             Vs.

                    Mr.Sam s/o K.J.Julius and Anr.                ..... Respondents

                    Mr.Filji Frederick a/w Mr.Ali Kazmi a/w Mr.Vinay Kumar i/b M/s.FF
                    & Associates for the Petitioners

                    Mr.Navaneetha Krishnan T. for Respondent no.1

                    Ms.Naveena Kumai a/w Mr.Raju Mandal for Respondent no.2


                                             CORAM:     S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                                        S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

                                             DATED :    DECEMBER 15, 2022

                    P.C.

                    1        The Petitioner is assailing the order passed by the shipping

master awarding back wages to the tune of Rs.14 lacs and odd to the

Respondents.

2 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners vehemently submits

that in view of section 132 of the Master Shipping Act, 1958 the

shipping master could not have entertained the dispute beyond Rs.5

lacs. The shipping master did not possess the Jurisdiction. The

order passed by the shipping master as such is without jurisdiction.

                    Mohite                                                            1/4
                                               30 wp12287-22.docx


3        The Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the learned single

Judge of this court dated 05.07.2019 in Admiralty Suit No.12 of

2017 in the case of Jagdish Singh Bhadauria vs. Bharati - S and

another.

4 The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the

Respondents had approached the High Court at Kerala raising back

wages by filing Case No.23 of 2018. The Petitioner herein raised

objection that in view of section 132 of the Merchant Shipping Act,

1958, the remedy is provided for deciding the dispute by the

shipping master. On the objection of the Petitioner, the matter was

referred to the shipping master. The learned counsel submits that if

the parties agreed to submit the dispute to shipping master,

provision of section 132 (1) would apply.

5 We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

counsel for the parties.

6 Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners on

the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in Admiralty

Suit No.12 of 2017 (Supra) would not be any avail to the Petitioner.

The same would not enure to the benefit of the Petitioner.               In



Mohite                                                             2/4
                                               30 wp12287-22.docx

paragraph 16 of the said judgment learned single Judge had

observed that under sub section (1)(b) of section 132 "in any other

case, parties to the dispute may agree in writing to submit the

dispute to the shipping master". Admittedly, there is no such

agreement either.

7 In the present case, the Petitioners raised an objection in a

proceeding filed by the Respondents before the Kerala High Court

that the shipping master is competent to decide the dispute between

the parties. The matter by the Kerala High Court was referred to the

shipping master. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition

that the court by its order cannot bestow jurisdiction on the

authority or the court that inherently lacks it and even if the court

refers the matter to the authority without jurisdiction then the same

would be an order coram non judice. However, in the present case,

section 132 (1)(b) specifically provides that in any other case if

both parties to the dispute agree in writing to submit the dispute to

shipping master then he can entertain the dispute. The Petitioner

raised an objection that the shipping master has to decide the

matter. Relying upon the stand of the Petitioner herein the Kerala

High Court remanded the matter to the shipping master. The parties

submit to the jurisdiction of the shipping master during the

Mohite 3/4 30 wp12287-22.docx

proceedings before the shipping master. The Petitioner does not

raise any objection qua the jurisdiction of the shipping master and

submits to the same.

8 It would appear that the parties agree to refer the dispute to

the shipping master. Moreover, the Petitioner is a Government of

India Undertaking. It is expected to be a model litigant. The

Petitioner cannot probate or reprobate as far as judgment of the

shipping master is concerned. No perversity has been pointed out

on merits of the matter.

9 In light of the above, Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

10 The amount deposited by the Petitioners is allowed to be

withdrawn by the Respondents.

(S.G.CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)                        (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)




Mohite                                                                 4/4