DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 10th February, 2021
JUDGES: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy
PARTIES
- Nawal Kishore Sharma (Plaintiff)
- Union of India & Ors (Respondent)
SUBJECT: the appellant (seaman) was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court dismissing appellant’s writ petition of claim for disability compensation, on account of a heart ailment.
AN OVERVIEW
(i) In this present case of the appellant that he was found medically fit in the medical test conducted by the Marine Medical Services in February, 2009 and thereafter, on 29.9.2009, an agreement known as the articles of agreement for employment of seafarers was executed for appellants off- shore duty. When the appellant reported sickness i.e. cough, abdominal pain, swelling in leg and difficulty in breathing, he was sent for medical treatment ashore at Adani, Mundra Port. Following that the Medical Officer ashore advised him for admission in the Hospital and accordingly he was signed off for further medical treatment. Post that, he was considered permanently unfit for sea service due to dilated cardiomyopathy (heart muscle disease) as per certificate dated 18.3.2011 issued by Corporation’s Assistant Medical Officer. Consequently, the Shipping Department of the Government of India, Mumbai issued order dated 12.4.2011 cancelling registration of the appellant as a Seaman.
(ii) It is stated by the appellant that after he settled at his native place Gaya, Bihar, he sent several letters from there to the respondents for his financial claims as per statutory provisions and terms of contract. On the disability compensation claim, Respondent (Corporation) communicated vide letter dated 7.10.2011 that since the appellant was declared unfit for sea service due to heart problem (organic ailment) he will be entitled to receive severance compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-, which was although offered, but not accepted by the appellant. It was further informed that he is not entitled to receive disability compensation, which becomes payable only in case a seaman becomes incapacitated as a result of the injury.
(iii) After hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties and considering entire materials on record, learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant holding that no cause of action, arose within its territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the appellant’s present appeal by special leave.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
- Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs. – (1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them or the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose. (2) The power conferred on a High Court by clause (1) shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32
ISSUES
The appellant (seaman) was aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.4.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court dismissing appellant’s writ petition of claim for disability compensation, on account of a heart ailment.
• Whether petitioner was entitled to the benefit of disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board (NMB) Agreement. Whether petitioner was entitled to the benefit of disability compensation under clause 21 of the National Maritime Board (NMB) Agreement.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
- The Bench opined that unless there are clear and compelling reasons, which cannot be denied, writ court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
- On a reading of the amended provisions in Clause (2), it is clear that now High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the C.P.C. The meaning of Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed.
- There cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court’s jurisdiction.
- Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation.
- Consequently, when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the High Court took the view that no cause of action, not even a fraction of cause of action, has arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.
- The court in regards to the contention that the seaman is entitled to100% disability compensation under Clause 21 of the National Maritime Board Agreement observed that, in this case, no linkage between the on ship duty and the appellant's medical condition, could be established.
- As can be seen from above, 100% compensation is payable to a seaman under Clause 5.9. F (ii) in a situation where a seaman is found medically unfit for sea service, as a result of injury, while in employment. But it is not the case of either side that the appellant had suffered any accidental injury in course of his engagement in the sea vessel. The question then is, whether the term 10 "injury", should be construed in the manner suggested by the appellant's counsel as anything which diminishes the health status of a seaman. Such broad interpretation in the context of the specific expression in the agreement would in our view, efface the intent of the agreement between the parties. Merely because of the beneficial objective, the clear expression in the agreement must not be ignored to give another meaning which could not have been the intention or the understanding, of the contracting parties.
- Consequently, the bench while dismissing the appeal said that in the absence of any connecting link between the job and the medical condition, the disability compensation in our opinion is not merited.
CONCLUSION
In this appeal, considering the entire facts of the case narrated hereinbefore including the interim order passed by the High Court, in our considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner- appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The bench while dismissing the appeal said that in the absence of any connecting link between the job and the medical condition, the disability compensation in our opinion is not merited.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
