2006 (3) TMI 145 - SC - Customs

Confiscation of vessel - Held that - The appellant and other crew members are entitled to a fair and just treatment and the confiscation of the ship shall not be treated as a prized catch of an enemy Ship deserving condemnation without exception. The case on hand does not present features of clear and demonstrated complicity of the crew. Maritime lien is a right which continues even if the ship is taken legally from an owner by requisition. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the first respondent that the Maritime lien is extinguished by confiscation has no force and is without any merit. The Courts have recognized and upheld the welfare of the citizens and have always recognized the rights of those who are in the lowest strata of the society especially when it comes to workers and their wages. The seamen have suffered a lot without wages from May, 1999 till the time they were deported by the Consulate. They have suffered a lot of mental and physical agony in spite of that they have not been given their wages till date due to a narrow approach. State should always be fair and reasonable in settling the lawful claims. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Customs Department that the ship was sold for Rs. 2.36 Crores through tender sale and the Cargo was sold off by customs through auction and a sum of Rs. 18.75 Crores was realised. The seamen can claim their wages only from and out of the sale proceeds of the vessel. We, therefore, unhesitently hold that all the seamen who were on board the vessel Kobe Queen I also known as Gloria Kopp are entitled to their full wages and perks. We, therefore, direct the Commander Coast Guard Region (East), Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009 and the other respondents including the Customs Department and the concerned Department of the Government of India to pay the wages forthwith to all the crew members who were on board in the vessel Kobe Queen I also known as Gloria Kopp at any rate not later than three months from the date of this judgment through the Consulate of the country concerned. Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to foreign seamen.
2. Requirement for the crew to file an independent suit for wage claims.
3. Impact of ship confiscation on the crew's lien for wages.
4. Validity of the confiscation order and its challengeability.
5. Maritime lien and its precedence over confiscation.
6. Right to wages under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Compliance with international conventions and principles of social justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 to Foreign Seamen:

The Division Bench held that the Chief of the Ship and crew can invoke the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act as they are seamen in a ship under the Act. The court clarified that the words "under this Act" qualify the words "the ship" and not "employed or engaged as a member of the crew."

2. Requirement for the Crew to File an Independent Suit for Wage Claims:

The Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge that the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act enable a seaman to resort to such a process without necessarily filing an independent civil suit. The process could be a step in aid in proceedings already pending at the instance of another party.

3. Impact of Ship Confiscation on the Crew's Lien for Wages:

The High Court compared the confiscation to sovereign immunity and concluded that the Maritime lien for wages extinguishes upon the ship being confiscated by the Government. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the confiscation of the ship does not extinguish the pre-existing rights of the crewmen. The lien of a Pawnee, as recognized in the Contract Act, is capable of satisfaction from property in the hands of the Government obtained even by lawful seizure.

4. Validity of the Confiscation Order and Its Challengeability:

The High Court held that the crew could question the validity of the confiscation order separately. The Supreme Court noted that the crew could seek an exception to the absolute forfeiture of the ship under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, allowing them to enforce their liens regardless of the confiscation order's validity.

5. Maritime Lien and Its Precedence Over Confiscation:

The Supreme Court emphasized that Maritime liens, particularly for seamen's wages, are universally recognized and cannot be extinguished by confiscation. The court cited various judgments and authorities to support the view that Maritime liens continue to bind the ship until satisfied or discharged by law.

6. Right to Wages Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

The Supreme Court held that the right to wages is an integral part of the right to livelihood and is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The provisions of Section 144 of the Merchant Shipping Act reflect this position, ensuring that the right to wages is unfettered and cannot be limited by other laws, including the Customs Act.

7. Compliance with International Conventions and Principles of Social Justice:

The Supreme Court noted that India has become a signatory to various international conventions honoring the rights of human beings. The court emphasized that the principles of social justice and the protection of workers' rights, as recognized in international conventions, should guide the interpretation and application of domestic laws.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order, directing the respondents, including the Customs Department and the Government, to pay the wages to all crew members who were on board the vessel Kobe Queen I (also known as Gloria Kopp) within three months from the date of the judgment through the Consulate of the concerned country. The court recognized the crew's right to wages as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and upheld the Maritime lien for wages despite the ship's confiscation.

← Previous Next →