Case: Ibrahim &amp; Others Vs. State of West Bengal &amp; Another

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants had entered into a half-yearly agreement with the Eastern Steamship Ltd. to navigate "S. S. Nilgiri" (Captain Hunter) between December 11, 1963 and June l0, 1964. The terms of their agreement are exhibited as Ex. l in the case. It appears that they had performed some voyages on board "S. S. Nilgiri" and on the day on which they are alleged to have deserted the ship, it had berthed in the Calcutta Port. According, to the custom obtaining in merchant shipping the ratings were allowed some bazar money (victualling charges). The appellants claim that they should have been paid Re.1 per day (the Company was paying only 62 paise per day). When the ship was in dock, the appellants put in this demand on 21/22-4-1964, and the matter was referred to the Shipping Master, Calcutta. Meetings between the representatives of the Shipping Company and the seamen took place before the Shipping Master. Minutes are available in the case. Although oral testimony on behalf of the Company seems to give a lie to some parts of the minutes, it is obvious that some sort of an agreement took place under which the Company promised to pay these men the amount though it is not clear whether the amount was to be paid before the commencement of the next voyage or on the termination of the agreement. Oral testimony on behalf of the company inclines to the latter. But there is also the evidence that the Company had undertaken to pay the seamen the additional amount of 38 paise per person per day before the voyage was resumed. Be that as it may, it appears that labour leaders at this stage began to take a hand in the dispute and prompted the appellants to leave the vessel in a body. As a result the ship could not leave the port because the ratings had abandoned it and were not available at the appointed time of sailing.3. The Presidency Magistrate before whom the appellants were tried for the offences already mentioned, held that their conduct amounted to desertion and that as they had no reasonable excuse for leaving their ship, they were guilty of the offences charged. He accordingly sentenced them as already stated. The High Court summarily rejected their revision.

Reasoning: 6. Section 191 (1) is in two parts. The first part deals with only desertion and therefore, if desertion was proved, the penalty which the law provides under the Act was duly incurred. There is no excuse against desertion because reasonable cause which is indicated in the same section is included in Cl. (b) and not in Cl. (a). But even if one were to view their conduct as falling under (b) and not (a) as the courts have held, we see no excuse on theirour opinion, in the present case there was not that sufficient cause even for purpose of Cl. (b) of S. 191 (1).After all the dispute was before the Shipping Master, meetings had taken place and minutes had been recorded.The log book of the shipping Company would show the different voyages and their duration and the muster roll would show the attendance of the crew. It was a matter of mere arithmetical calculation between Re. 1 per day and 62 paise per day to find out how much money was due to each of the ratings. This would not amount to more than Rs. 30 or Rs. 40 per person and this claim might well have waited till the completion of the voyage, because the record of the entire proceedings was kept in the Shipping Masters office and there was machinery in law for the enforcement of a demand. In our opinion, the ratings were overweighed by their leaders and were induced to leave the ship in a body in a manner which can only be described as desertion and therefore their offence was fully established.