Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
The facts that gave rise to this prosecution are cor- rectly set out in the following two paragraphs which are quoted from the judgment of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate:--
" The owners of the ships have an organisation known as the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The seamen have an organ- isation know as the Joint Supply Office. Since 1940-41 the licensed broker system for engagement of seamen had been abolished. The Calcutta Maritime Board was established as a result of a collective agreement between the owners of the ships and seamen's representatives for recruiting seamen. It is a joint negotiating machinery between the owners and the seamen for direct engagement of seamen by the owners. The Joint Supply Office does not supply the seamen. The Calcut- ta Maritime Board also does not supply nor engage seamen. The engagement is made by the Captains of the Ships. The Calcutta Maritime ,Board, at the relevant time, was formed of equal members representing the Calcutta Liners' Confer- ence (the owners) and the Joint Supply Office (the seamen). At the present moment the Government of India have two representatives in the Calcutta Maritime Board. There are two Joint Chairmen and two joint Secretaries, one each from each group of the owners' and seamen's representatives. Accused Stephens is the Secretary of the Calcutta Liners' Conference and is a paid officer. His salary is paid by his employers, the Calcutta Liners' Conference, with contribu- tions obtained from the owners of the ships whose associa- tion the Conference is. The accused is one of the Joint Secretaries of the Calcutta Maritime Board in his capacity as the Secretary of the Calcutta Liners' Conference. The Joint Secretaries of the Calcutta Maritime Board hold honorary posts and receive no remuneration."
"The procedure for recruitment now is that the seamen present themselves before the Calcutta Maritime Board. They are given muster cards which permit them to appear at the musters where the Captains of the ships engage the seamen. The Board endeavours to lay down a procedure for the Captains of the ships while engaging seamen. There is an excess of supply of seamen over the demand. This had brought in corruption. To fight out corruption, the Calcutta Maritime Board was con- ceived to find out a procedure for the owners of the ships for employing seamen by rotation. For meeting the office expenses of the Calcutta Maritime Board the owners, at the relevant time used to pay Rs. 2 per seaman engaged. After signing on, each seaman pays back the owners Re. 1 as his contribution towards office expenses of the Calcutta Mari- time Board. None of the facts stated above was contested for the complainant."
On the facts as admitted or proved in the evidence, it is difficult to see what offence the accused has committed. Neither the Calcutta Maritime Board, nor the Calcutta Lin- ers' Conference supply the seaman. The registration entitles the seamen to get muster cards which enable them to appear at the musters, and there, the Captains of the ships select and engage the seamen. It is after this selection and engagement that the body of shipowners, called the Calcutta Liners' Conference, pay Rs. 2 to the Calcutta Maritime Board out of which Re. 1 is their Own contribution and Re. 1 is the contribution by the seaman which is deducted from his wages. There is therefore no supply of a seaman within the meaning of section 25 of the Act. A number of seamen offer themselves for employment and they are all gathered together at a place, so that the shipowner or Captain of the ship may select whomsoever he pleases. There is no obligation on the owners of the ships to select any particular person, nor is any such selection made by the Maritime Board either direct- ly or through its servants for the benefit of the owners and for employment under them. The Calcutta Maritime Board of which the accused is an honorary Joint Secretary is an institution that was created in the end of 1947,' with the knowledge, ii not the approval, of the Government of India as a liaison body or institution to bring the owners and the seamen together, with reference to the engagement of seamen for ships. The labour corps is brought into contact with the owners by the Maritime Board through the Joint Supply Office but the seamen are engaged by the shipowners or the Captains. To a certain extent, the recruitment is regulated by the Maritime Board, but it is a misnomer to say that the seamen are supplied to the owners by the Board or by any of its officers. In his written statement found at page 28 of the printed book the accused has stated, and it is not controverted anywhere, that the system of selection of crew through the agency of Serangs was brought to an end owing to the opposition of the seamen themselves, who alleged that it resulted in widespread corruption as the Serangs recruited only those who paid them heavily.
It is fantastic for the prosecution to suggest that Re. 1 levied out of the seaman's wages after he signs the agree- ment of employment amounts to remuneration received for providing the man with employment. The remuneration paid to the accused which is over Rs. 2,000 a month is by way of salary from the Calcutta Liners' Conference under whom he is a paid Secretary. The Calcutta Maritime Board receives Re. 1 per seaman from the shipowners' association, but this is by way of contribution towards the expenses of the Joint Supply Office of the Board. This is made perfectly clear in the evidence given on commission by Mr. C.P. Srivastava, Officer on Special Duty, Ministry of Commerce, New Delhi, and of Mr. Dikken examined on the side of the prosecution who says that the contribution is made to meet the running expenses of the Joint Supply Office and Maritime Board. Mr. Gold- well of James Finlay & Co., sixth witness for the defence, has stated that the Calcutta Maritime Board and the Joint Supply Office are financed by the Liners and that the accused has nothing to do with the engagement of the seamen. There is also a finding of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, which has not been set aside, that the allegation of the complainant that the accused received Re. 1 from him prior to registration of his name in the Joint Supply Office, has not been substantiated.