Home Maxims & Terms Seaman meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Seaman

Seaman legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1991 PLC 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Words and PhrasesS. 22Merchant Shipping Act (XXI of 1923), Ss. 2(3), 27(1) & 264-A(1)Pakistan Merchant Shipping (Seamen's Employment) Rules, 1961, Rr. 17, 22, 25, 26, 28 & 29Referendum for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent

Petitioner was a registered Trade Union of working seamen who worked as such and held valid continuous discharge certificate

Respondents who were also registered Trade Unions of working seamen, holding continuous discharge certificates, moved an application to Registrar, Trade Unions for holding secret ballot for election of Collective Bargaining Agent under provisions of S. 22 Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

In response to notice given by Registrar Trade Unions calling upon registered Trade Unions to indicate their desire they wanted to contest secret ballot for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent, petitioner as also other respondents expressed their desire and proceedings for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent were pending Petitioner Union as also other respondents challenged competency of Registrar to ask for holding a referendum for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent

Petitioner's contention was that seamen who had valid discharge certificate were not employed in the establishment who were actually engage and employed on ship

Registrar by his impugned order disposed of this and several other points raised and decided to prepare list of voters who would be entitled to cast their votes in the referendum

Provisions of Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 and Rules framed thereunder made it clear that. "Seamen" meant ever person employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship

Held, since expression "seamen" as defined by S. 2(8) of Merchant Shipping Act was confined only to those who were employed or engaged in any capacity on board any ship Trade Unions which held valid Continuous Discharge Certificate and were no engaged in any capacity on board any ship could not be considered in the establishment

Order of Registrar disposing of objections and points raised and deciding to prepare list of voters, entitling them to cast their votes in the referendum was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and Registrar was directed to consider whether seamen in trade union had beer employed o- engaged on board any ship or not.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Seaman", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15853

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Seaman"

PLC 1991
Constitutional Petition No. S‑3 of 1990, decided on 30th June, 1990.

1991 P L C 186

PAKISTAN SEAMEN'S UNION Versus THE REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, SINDH and 13 others

Court: Karachi High Court
PLD 2002
Admiralty Appeals Nos. 2 and 3 of 1999, decided on 13th March, 2002.

P L D 2002 Karachi 395

SIKANDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CIT GROUP/CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FINANCING INC.‑‑‑Respondent

Court:
CLC 1999
Admiralty Suit No.699 of 1995, decided on 9th January, 1999.

1999 C L C 996

SIKANDAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATER and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLC 1989
Constitutional Petition No.1186 of 1980, decided on 30th November, 1988.

1989 C L C 588

MARINE ENGINEERS' ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner Versus SHIPPING MASTER, GOVERNMENT OF SHIPPING OFFICE,

Court: Karachi
CLC 1986
Admiralty Suits Nos. 395 and 555 to 562 of 1985, decided on 29th October, 1985.

1986 C L C 998

ILIADIS IOAMMIS‑‑Plaintiff Versus M.V. QUEEN VASSILIKI‑11 and others‑‑Defendants

Court: Karachi
PLD 1989
Admiralty Suits Nos.482, 607 and 608 of 1984, Ext. Appln.No. 118 of 1987 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos.3470 of 1987 in Adm. Suit No.649 of 1984, 3622 and 3623 of 1987, decided on 15th November, 1988.

P L D 1989 Karachi 65

INHAM REFRIGERATION b.v. — Plaintiff Versus The OWNERS OF "F.T.PARIVASH" and "TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS LTD." — Defendants

Court: ---S. 4(4)--Admiralty jurisdiction--Term 'Wages'--Meaning, scope and import of--Where a seaman was entitled to receive any amount or benefit which could be translated into money on account of his services as a seaman, same would be covered by the definition of 'wages' and could be the subject-matter of an Admiralty suit under Ordinance XLII of 1980--Plaintiff, however, in such suit should be either the seaman himself or his authorised agent--Where in suit 'A' the decree prima facie was not for wages by a seaman or by his authorised agent on his behalf, such plaintiff could not have priority over the plaintiff in suit 'B'--Decrees in other suit relating to supplies of necessaries etc. would come after the decree of plaintiff in suit 'B' in priority, the latter being mortgagee of the vessel--Priority in other cases would be, firstly, the decrees on account of wages, secondly, decrees on account of Master's wages and disbursement if any, thirdly, decree on mortgages, fourthly. necessaries and repairs and lastly ordinary decrees.--Words and phrases.
CLC 1980
Admiralty Suit No. 429 of 1978, heard on 4th October, 1978.

1980 C L C 80

CARLITO M. DALAC-Plaintiff Versus M. v. `ASIAN QUEEN' THROUGH ITS MASTER/CAPTAIN,

Court: Karachi
PLD 1993
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑810, 811 of 1987, D‑1231 to 1234 of 1988, D‑798 and 799 of 1990, decided on 15th Marcy, 1993.

P L D 1993 Karachi 656

MUHAMMAD AMJAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others ‑‑‑ Respondents

Court:
PLC 2005
Constitution Petitions Nos. 2011, 2012, 2051 and 2289 of 1995, decided on 23rd November, 2004.

2005 P L C 175

M/s. OVERSEAS MARINE TRADING AGENCIES (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and another

Court: Karachi High Court
PLD 1978
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 407 to 410 of 1974, decided on 16th August 1978.

1978K199

M. H. JAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus SECOND SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI AND 3 others — ‑Respondents

Court: