Home

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the recent case of Teekay Shipping (India) Private Limited vs. Union of India and Ors (Writ Petition No. 135 of 2018) vide order dated 24th March 2026 dismissed a Writ Petition filed by the shipping company (RPSL agents) challenging the order of the First Appellate authority (SEO) directing it to pay compensation to legal heirs of the Master of the vessel Orkney Spirit who died in 2012 while on earned leave.

Brief Facts:

This case arises in relation to a death compensation claim of late Capt. Dhinsa who was employed with M/s Teekay Shipping as a Master since 1990 up until November 2012. Unfortunately, when on earned leave in October 2012, he was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and passed away in November the same year. The legal heirs had approached the company for death compensation, which was rejected on grounds of liability. The Respondent in the instant Writ petition then approached the Director General of Shipping wherein the office of the Shipping Master adjudicated the claim and rejected the same by way of an order dated 1st October 2014. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (Principal Officer) who after adjudication directed the Petitioner to pay compensation to the Respondent as per the terms of the Contract. It is this order that was challenged by the Petitioner before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by way of a Writ Petition.

Submissions made by the Parties – The Petition was filed and argued on the following grounds –

• Provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (“MSA”) do not apply to the contract of employment of late Captain Dhinsa or to the vessel in question as it was not registered in India
• Seamen’s Employment Office lacked any adjudicatory powers under Section 95 of the MSA
• Assumption of jurisdiction by Seamen’s Employment office in the present case is otherwise without jurisdiction in view of the fact that Capt. Dhinsa was Master mariner and did not fit into the definition of the term “seaman” under Section 3(42) of the MSA

In the given case, the Petitioner was an RPSL agent under the Merchant Shipping (Recruitment and Placement Services) Rules, 2005. In addition to the jurisdictional challenges, the company also challenged the SEO order urging that it was erroneous and the order suffered from non-application of mind. It was also argued that there is no causal connection between the employment and his demise.

To these arguments, the Respondent inter alia defended by stating that the company actively participated in the proceedings and did not raise any jurisdictional objections before the SEO when the matter was being adjudicated and therefore now is a mere tactic to delay payment. It was highlighted by the Respondent that the clause in the contract provided for compensation to be paid even on earned leave.