DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant under section 25-A.I. R. O.
2. The appellant was employed by Gulfeast Ship Management Limited having its head office at Hong Kong. The respondent is the Managing Agent of Messrs Gulfeast Ship Management Ltd. The appellant served on the ship since 16th February, 1975. He was transferred from one ship to the other belonging to the Company. Lastly, he worked on the ship known as United Warrior. He was, however, kept on stand by duties from .13th July, 1975 as per letter dated 12th July, 1975 issued by the Captain of the ship. According to the appellant, he Was informed verbally in November, 1975 that his services were terminated: He, therefore, served .a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court impleading the Managing Agent as respondent without joining the principal.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was never in the service of the respondent but he was appointed by Messrs Gulfeast Ship Management Ltd., Hong Kong while the respondent simply acted as an agent for that Company. It was also pleaded that the service of the respondent was terminated by the aforesaid company and not by the respondent.
Consequently, the application against the respondent was not maintainable.
4. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court dismissed the application on two grounds, viz. That the respondent was not the employer of the appellant and no grievance notice was served.
5. Taking up the second question with regard to the grievance notice I must say that the learned Labour Court erred in saying that any grievance notice was necessary. I have already held in a few cases that in view of subsection (6) of section 25-A, I. R. O. No grievance notice is necessary in a case of the grievance in respect of the termination of service.
6. So far the first question is concerned, I entirely agree with the Labour Court that the respondent was not the employer of the appellant and, therefore, the application against the respondent was not maintainable. Admittedly, the appointment letter was issued by the Gulfeast Ship Management Ltd. Having its head office at Hong Kong. The respondent was merely an agent for certain limited purpose. He had no control over the appellant who was required to serve on the ship and not in the establish--ment maintained by the respondent. The definition of the term "employer" as provided by section 2(viii) does not include the respondent. There was no assignment nor the respondent was responsible for the management, supervision and of control of the establishment required to serve on the ship, but the Captain of the ship was the person who was entrusted with those responsibilities.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to rely upon the provisions of the Contract Act without referring to any section of the. Contract Act, but I am afraid the Contract Act has no application with regard to the liability of the respondent. It, however, seems that the learned counsel had in view the provisions of section 230 of the Contract Act, but even this has no application. Section 230 debars a person to sue an agent in the absence of a contract unless the case falls under subsections (1), (2) and (3). Subsection (1) relates to the sale and purchase of goods. Sub--section (2) relates to the case where the name of the principal has not been disclosed. Subsection (3) refers to the case where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued.
This third subsection cannot be attracted in the present case as it obviously refers to foreign sovereigns or ambassadors. Moreover, the re-instatement is not sought under the Contract Act, but under the Labour Laws. Only a civil Court can entertain a suit arising, out of the breach of the contract under the Contract Act. A Labour Count cannot invoke the provisions of the Contract Act with regard to a case falling under Labour Laws. To seek the relief under the Labour Laws the provisions of Labour Laws can only be invoked and the question for seeking assistance from another law does not arise.
8. In result the appeal is dismissed.