ORDER
G. Yethirajulu, J.
1.This Revision Petition is filed by the accused in C.C.No.736 of 1999 on the file of the li Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
2. The respondent herein is the complainant in the said case. He filed a complaint alleging that the wages due to him are payable with effect from 23-06-1999 till the date of filing of the complaint by the accused. The complainant worked as a Petty Officer in the Indian Navy and later, he was recruited by the Sainik Board as a monthly paid worker in the accused organization. The complainant is a Navy Petty Officer and holder of Continuous Discharge Certificate. The complainant signed the articles of agreement on 12-12-1998 as per Section 16 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') as a Seaman and the same was approved by the Director General of Shipping, Mumbai. While he was on the Board, Dredge VIM at Paradeep, on 19-06-1999 a memo was issued as monthly paid worker, which was declined by him. He was given the charge sheet on 23-07-1999 by initiating disciplinary proceedings since he disobeyed the orders of the Master. He was signed off from the ship on 22-06-1999 by paying the wages till that date and he was instructed to report to the second accused. When he reported before the second accused, he was asked to see the Assistant Manager who in turn asked him to wait and thereafter, the above mentioned charge sheet was issued. Hence, the complaint to direct the petitioners to pay the wages from 23-06-1999 till date and for compensation.
3. The complaint was taken on file under Section 145 of the Act. The complainant was examined as PW-1 and marked Exs. P-1 and P-2 on his behalf. After closure of the evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and later, the first accused was examined as DW-1 and Exs. D-1 to D-7 were marked on behalf of the accused. After considering the evidence adduced by both parties, the lower Court allowed the case and the respondents are directed to pay back wages from 23-06-1999 till date within one month from the date of the order. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused preferred the present Revision Petition contending that Section 145 of the Act is not applicable in respect of the complainant as he is not a Seaman and he is only the monthly paid worker, whose remedy is only to file a suit in a civil Court for recovery of the wages due to him.
4. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submitted that there is no record to show that the complainant was recognized as a Seaman. Though the complainant contended that he signed an agreement on 12-12-1998 in the capacity of a Seaman, the copy of the said agreement was not filed and the entire record discloses that he was only a monthly paid worker.
5. After service of notice, the respondent herein did not make his appearance either in person or through the counsel.
6. Section 145 of the Act reads as follows:
145.Summary proceedings for wages.-- (1) A seaman or apprentice or a person duly authorized on his behalf may, as soon as any wages due to him become payable, apply to [any Judicial Magistrate of the first class or any Metropolitan magistrate, as the case may be,] exercising jurisdiction in or near the place at which his service has terminated or at which he has been discharged or at which any person upon whom the claim is made is or resides, an [such Magistrate] shall try the case in a summary way and the order made by [such Magistrate] in the matter shall be final.
(2) An application under subsection (1) may also be made by any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behalf by general or special order.
From the above provision, it is clear that a Seaman or apprentice or a person duly authorized on his behalf has to file the complaint before the Magistrate and no other person is eligible to file the complaint and the said persons are entitled to file a Civil Suit under Section 146 of the Act.
7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners further submitted that for the wages, if any, due to a monthly paid worker, he is entitled to file a suit before the appropriate Court under Section 146 of the Act for recovery of the same, but not by way of filing complaint under Section 145 of the Act.
8. After going through the entire record, I am convinced that the respondent herein was never recognized as a Seaman, therefore, he is not entitled to maintain the complaint under Section 145 of the Act. The lower Court, by assuming that he worked as a Seaman, passed the impugned order. But, after verification of the record, it is found that the complainant is only a monthly paid worker, therefore, the complaint cannot be maintained and the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside.
9. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed. The order of the lower Court, dated 25-07-2005 in C.C.No.736 of 1999 is set aside. The respondent herein is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of the wages, if any, due to him before the appropriate Court. No order as to costs.