1

REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11902 OF 2018      (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) NO. 16874 OF 2017)

THE CHAIRMAN V.O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

CAPT. PAUL NADAR BENNET SINGH                     ...RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMTAHI,J.

Leave granted.

2. This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment  and  order

dated 10.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Madras at

Madurai in W.A. (MD) No. 914 of 2015 in and by which the

High Court has set aside the order of termination of the

respondent  and  directed  reinstatement  with  back  wages

giving liberty to the appellants to examine the validity of

the certificates possessed by the respondent by providing

him an opportunity of personal hearing.

3. In  response  to  the  advertisement  issued  by  the

appellants-Port  Trust for  the post  of pilot  officer, the

respondent applied for the same. The respondent attended the

interview for the post of Pilot Officer on 19.03.2008 and he

had become successful. By proceeding dated 08.04.2008, the

2

respondent was appointed to the post of Pilot Officer in the

appellants - Tuticorin Port Trust. As per appointment order,

the appointment of the respondent is on regular basis as

seen from the following:

“Capt. Paulandar Bennet Singh is offered an appointment as Pilot on regular basis in the Tuticorin Port Trust in the scale of Pay of Rs. 1450-350-18700. He will be eligible  for  the  usual  allowances  as admissible under the rules and orders in force from time to time.

2. The  terms  and  conditions  of appointment are as follows: (i) He  should  execute  a  bond  to  the effect that he will serve at least for two  years  as  Pilot  on  Tuticorin  Port Trust.

(ii) The appointment is temporary but is likely to continue indefinitely. This is further subject to the conditions that he should  qualify  in  the  examination  for issue  of  Pilot  License  to  perform  the duties of Pilot in TPT as per Tuticorin Port  (Authorization  of  Pilots) Regulations, 1979.

As per the appointment order, the respondent has to execute

a bond to the effect that he would serve at least for two

years as Pilot in Tuticorin Port Trust.  From the language

and the tenor of the said appointment letter it is patently

clear that the appointment was a regular appointment against

a  permanent  post  which  was  to  continue  subject  to  the

respondent qualifying in the examination of Pilot licence.

The  appointment  was  subject  to  the  condition  that  the

3

respondent would not be able to leave his job before expiry

of two years from the date of his appointment.  

4. On 02.04.2012, the appellants issued a termination

notice as per Regulation 5(1)(a)(b) of the Tuticorin Port

Employees  (Temporary  Service)  Regulations,  1979.  The

respondent filed appeal before the Chairman on 21.04.2012. By

the order dated 30.04.2012, the Deputy Conservator In-charge

had terminated the service of the respondent.

5. Challenging the termination order, the respondent filed

the  Writ  Petition  before  the  High  Court  and  the  Learned

Single  Judge  allowed  the  Writ  Petition  setting  aside  the

termination  order  and  directed  reinstatement  of  the

respondent with back wages. In appeal, the Division Bench

affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. However, the

Division Bench gave opportunity to the appellants to examine

the validity of the certificates of the respondent again by

affording an opportunity of personal hearing.

6. We  have  heard  Mr.  Parag  Tripathi,  learned  senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Mr.

Keshav Thakur as well as Mr.A. Mariarputham, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and perused the

impugned judgment and materials on record.

7. As  per  Tuticorin  Port  (Authorization  of  Pilots)

4

Regulations, 1979, the term Pilot is defined in 2(e) of the

Regulations as under:

(e) “Pilot” means a person lawful appointed and licensed as such by the Board subject to the authorization of the Central Government, to pilot in the Port any vessel as directed by the Deputy Conservator/Harbor Master.”

As per Regulations 4, Pilots to be licensed as under:-

“(1) Every  pilot  shall  hold  a  license  to perform the duties of a pilot for the Port of Tuticorin and such license, subject to the sanction of the Central Government, may be issued and be revocable by the Board.

(2) A pilot severing his connection with the  Board  shall  forthwith  deliver  his license to the Board.”

8. The objection raised regarding the appointment of the

respondent is that he was holding certificate of competency

as  Master  issued  by  the  Maritime  and  Port  Authority  of

Singapore  which  is  not  treated  as  equivalent  of  the

certificate granted by the Government of India.  According

to  the  appellants,  the  Directorate  General  of  Shipping,

Ministry of Shipping, Government of India, issued a Circular

only on 27.05.2014 No. NT/ENGG. 02 of 2014, as per which the

Directorate  had  taken  a  decision  to  permit  Australia,

Singapore, Ireland and New Zealand Certificate of competency

(CoC) holders of Indian nationality to sail on Indian Flag

vessels. It is, therefore, the contention of the appellants

that prior to 27.05.2014 the CoC issued by Singapore was not

recognized by  th Government  of India.  It was,  therefore,

5

submitted  that  the  respondent  possessing  certificate  of

competency  issued  by  the  Maritime  and  Port  Authority  of

Singapore was not eligible to be appointed on regular basis

and, therefore, his service was rightly terminated and the

High Court erred in directing reinstatement.

9. Our attention has been drawn by learned senior counsel

Mr. A. Mariarputham appearing on behalf of the respondent to

the advertisement issued for the post of Pilot Officer in

response  to  which  the  respondent  has  appeared.  The  said

advertisement for the Pilot Officer reads as under:

“Vacancy – 1 No. of Pilot Officer Qualification & Experience: Certificate of Competency as Master (FG) with minimum three years experience as Chief Officer. Age: 45 years. Remuneration : Scale of Pay of Rs.14500-350- 18700 Approximately Rs. 50,000/- per month (Conditions apply).”

10. It is to be pointed out that in the advertisement it was

not indicated that the candidate should have a certificate of

competency issued by the authorities which are recognized by

the Government of India. In the case of the respondent, the

Tuticorin  Port  Trust  had  sent  a  letter  to  the  Ministry  of

Shipping dated 29.09.2008 stating that the respondent is in

possession of certificate of competency issued by the Maritime

Authority  of  Singapore  and  requesting  to  issue  a  positive

clarification  which  may  help  the  appellants  to  engage  the

6

respondent as Pilot in the appellants’ Port on a regular basis.

The said letter reads as under:

“However,  a  clarification  was  sought  from nautical  Advisor  on  the  validity  of  his Certificate,  who  in  turn  affirmed  that Singapore  Certificate  is  not  accepted  by Indian Administration under Reg.1/10 of STCW 95.

Capt.  Paul  Nadar  Bennet  Singh  is  in possession  of  qualification  of  M.B.A. (Shipping  and  Port  Management),  Master  of Human Resource, Advanced Diploma in Maritime Transportation and Master of Science (M.S.) in counselling  and psychotherapy. He has a record of Sea Service as Master Mariner at different  spell  from  9.10.2003  to 22.12.2007. After his appointment as Pilot in  this  Port  he  is  being  provided  with necessary  training  so  as  to  acquire knowledge  in  handling  ships  in  the  Port Waters.  By  Virtue  of  his  experience  in foreign  going  vessel,  he  is  having  high knowledge in the shipping operations and his performance  in  the  field  is  apparently excellent.

It is, therefore, requested that taking into account the factual position as brought out in para 2 & 3 above, to issue a positive clarification,  which  may  help  to  engage, Capt. Paul Nadar Bennet Singh as Pilot in this Port on a regular basis, by accepting the  competency  Certificate  issued  by  the Maritime  Authority  of  Singapore  (a  common wealth country).”

11. The Government of India in its communication dated

26.11.2010  asked  the  appellants  to  clarify  whether  the

certificate of competency as Master (Foreign going) issued by

the  Maritime  and  Port  Authority  of  Singapore  is  a  valid

qualification for undertaking pilotage duties at Tuticorin Port

Trust as per relevant regulations/recruitment rules.

7

12. In the clarification sought for by the appellants in

the communication dated 15.03.2011 the Deputy Nautical Advisor

has clarified the same as under:

1) Singapore is a white list country with IMO which means that it has been recognized by IMO to have given full compliance to STCW Convention 1978 (as amended).

2) Certificate  of  Competency  as  Deck Officer Class I ( Master Mariners) issued by Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore is not  recognized  under  the  provisions  of Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (as amended), as well as STCW 78/95 Regulation 1/10 to command an Indian Ship as on date.

3) As regard to recognize the CoC issued by PSA, Singapore for pilots working in your port,  you  may  be  guided  by  the  port regulations.  

13. The Deputy Nautical Advisor has thus clarified that the

appellants may be guided by their Port Regulations. As pointed

out  earlier,  as  per  Tuticorin  Port  Regulations,  1979,  the

qualification of candidates for pilot license is to possess

certificate of competency as Master (Foreign going) granted by

the Government of India or its equivalent.

Regulation 6 reads as under:  

6.  Qualification  of  Candidates–(1)  A candidate for a Pilotage License shall:

(a)  be  in  possession  of  a  certificate  of competency as Master (foreign-going) granted by the Government of India or its equivalent and should have, preferably, experience of at least six months as First Mate, on a foreign- going ship;………………………

8

As seen from the above even as per the Regulations of the

appellants-Port Trust, the qualification for pilot license is

the  possession  of  the  certificate  of  competency  as  Master

(foreign-going)  granted  by  the  Government  of  India  or  its

equivalent.  Neither  at  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  the

respondent or subsequently that appellants – Port Trust had

raised any objection that Certificate of Competency granted by

Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore was not equivalent to

the CoC granted by the Government of India. In fact, the letter

of appointment which we have extracted above, the appointment

is subject to the condition that the respondent should qualify

in the examination for issue of pilot license to perform duties

in Tuticorin Port Trust. In the impugned judgment, the Division

Bench has pointed out the respondent has passed the examination

for issuance of pilot license on 10.02.2009. No exception would

be taken for the eligibility of the respondent to continue as

the pilot officer in the appellants-Port Trust.

14. In the light of the clarification given by the Deputy

Nautical  Advisor  the  contention  of  the  appellants  that  CoC

issued by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore cannot

be taken as a recognized one by the Government of India, in our

view, has no substance.  This is all the more so, in the light

of  letter  sent  by  appellants  dated  29.09.2008  expressing

satisfaction  over  the  experience  and  knowledge  of  the

respondent in the shipping operation. It is also to be pointed

out that the respondent has been allowed to perform duties and

9

also the fact that in the appointment order it is stated that

the appointment is on  “regular basis”.

15. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any

good ground warranting interference with the impugned order. In

the  light  of  the  above  discussion,  there  is  no  further

necessity  to  examine  the  certificate  of  the  respondent  as

observed by the Division Bench.

16.  Admittedly  the  respondent  has  not  worked  with  the

appellants  from  2012  till  date.  In  the  peculiar  facts  and

circumstances of the present case, we modify the order of the

High Court with regard to the back wages to the extent that the

same be reduced to 40% with effect from 2012 till the date of

joining and the appeal is partly allowed to that extent.

17. The above judgment is passed in the special facts and

circumstances of the present case and may not be treated as a

precedent in future.

……………………………………………………..J. [R. BANUMATHI]

NEW DELHI …………………………………………………….J. 6TH DECEMBER, 2018 [INDIRA BANERJEE]