1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioners in these petitions had respectively signed agreements for service on foreign ships. Subsequently, the petitioners received show-cause notices from respondent No,2 alleging that they had demanded wages higher than those agreed with their employers which amounted to misconduct/misbehaviour within the purview of section 43-B of Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the `said Act'). The petitioners were also charged for having approached a foreign organisation, namely, International Transport Federation (hereinafter referred to as `ITF) for higher wages.
2. ' The petitioners have, however, denied the aforesaid allegations. In any case, the case of the petitioners is that the question of purportedly drawing higher wages does not fall in any manner within the purview of section 43-B of the said Act. It is pertinent to point out that in most of the cases no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, according to the counter-affidavits filed in some of the cases, it has been reiterated that confirmation in this regard was received from ITF by the respondents which was sufficient reason for invoking section 43-B of the said Act and since the petitioners were guilty of committing breach of the contract with the foreign shipping companies, they had caused colossal damage to the Pakistani seamen with foreign employers and hence the impugned action.
3. ' Mr. Kazi Faiz Isa, learned counsel for the petitioners has, however, contended that even assuming that higher wages were demanded by the petitioners from the respective shipping companies, with whom the petitioners had signed their respective contracts of service, the matter in no way could fall within the purview of section 43-B of the said Act. Section 43-B of the said Act provides as under:-- "43-B.---(1) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Act, the shipping master may suspend, cancel or confiscate the certificate of discharge of any seaman who is certified under subsection (1) of section 107 to have deserted his ship or is found guilty of smuggling, theft, misbehaviour or such other offence as may, in the opinion of the shipping master, make him unsuitable for employment on board a ship.
(2) Any person aggrieved by an order under subsection (1) may, within ninety days from the date of receipt of such order, file an appeal to the Central Government from such order.
(3) The Central Government may prescribe the form and manner in which appeals under subsection (2) shall be filed and disposed of."
4. A plain reading of the above section clearly indicates that the shipping master has been vested with powers to suspend, cancel or confiscate the certificate of discharge of any seaman referred to in the said section in case he is found guilty of either deserting his ship or sumuggling, theft or misbehaviour or such other offence as may in the opinion of the shipping master make him unsuitable for employment on board a ship. Subsection (2) of the said section provides for an appeal by an aggrieved person which may be filed within 90 days before the Federal Government.
5. The petitioners did file such appeals but the same were not entertained on the ground that the penalty imposed did not fall within the purview of section 43-B. In some cases petitions had earlier been filed before this Court and the case was remanded to respondent No,1 for disposal in accordance with the law and thereafter although the appeals were disposed of but the same were decided against the petitioners.
6. The main question, that requires consideration, is whether the misconduct alleged against the petitioners tantamounts to "misbehaviour" as contemplated by section 43-B of the said Act. The said word has not been defined by any of the provisions of the said Act but Mr. Kazi Faiz Isa has referred to the meaning of the said term given in the Ballentine's Law Dictionary, according to which "misbehaviour" means "improper conduct, intentional wrongdoing rather than mere error in judgment Smith v. Cutler (NY) 10 Wend 589." Similar meaning is given in Corpus Juris Secundum, according to which the word "misbehaviour" means "ill-conduct; improper or unlawful behaviour. It has been held to be synonymous with `misconduct'." Learned counsel for the petitioners has also invited our attention to the meaning of the word "misconduct" given in Corpus Juris Secundum. The said word implies "bad or wrong behaviour, improper behaviour, unlawful behaviour or conduct or improper or wrong conduct". In our opinion since the word "misbehaviour" has been used in the company of the words "smuggling" and "theft", it must also take its colour from the said words.
7. Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition at page 289 says: "Where two or more words which are susceptible of analogous meaning are coupled together, noscitur a sociis. They are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from each other, the meaning of the more general being restricted to a sense analogous to that of the less general."
8. ' Similar observations appear in "The Interpretation of Statutes and General Clauses Act" by N.S. Bindra, Second Edition, at page 189. In Crawford's Statutory Constructions, 1940 Edition at page 325, the rule has been stated thus: "In order to ascertain the meaning of any word or phrase that is ambiguous or susceptible to more than one meaning, the Court may properly resort to the other words with which the ambiguous word is associated in the statute. Accordingly, if several words are connected by a copulative conjunction, a presumption arises that they are of the same class, unless, of course, a contrary intention is indicated. On the other hand, the maxim `noscitur a sociis', is not to be applied where the meaning of a word or phrase is clear and unambiguous. Nor is it to be used so as to render general words useless. Like all other principles of construction, it is to be used only as an instrumentality for determining the intent of the legislature where it is in doubt."
9. Consequently, since the word "misbehaviour" has been used in section 43-B along with the words smuggling and theft, it implies misbehaviour of serious nature, analogous to smuggling or theft.
10. The use of the words "or such other offence" by the legislature along with the words "smuggling", "theft" and "misbehaviour" in section 43-B is further indicative of the fact that misbehaviour for which a seaman can be punished must also amount to an offence. The word "offence" according to Ballentine's Law Dictionary implies a crime. No doubt, the word can be given a broader meaning and can also refer to misconduct or misbehaviour in some cases, but as has been pointed out earlier, only a serious kind of misbehaviour can result in one of the punishments referred to in section 43-B. This is further indicated by use of the words "make him unsuitable for employment on board a ship". The said words clearly lead to an inference that every kind of misbehaviour cannot fall within the purview of section 43-B but only such misbehaviour which would make a seaman unsuitable for employment on board a ship. Consequently, the alleged misconduct for which the petitioners have been punished is not Rich which would entail a penalty as provided in section 43- B of the Act.
11. ' Furthermore, in majority of the cases the impugned order passed indicates that only an endorsement was made on the continuous discharge certificate of the petitioners to the effect that they had approached ITF for higher wages. This kind of punishment, as we find by a plain reading of section 43-B, has not been contemplated there as the section only refers to suspension, cancellation or confiscation of such certificate. We are consequently of the view that the action taken by the respondents is not in accordance with the law and the same is liable to be quashed.
12. ' In the result, we allow these petitions by declaring that the action taken against the petitioners was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. We further direct the respondents not to implement the impugned .Order. The parties are left to bear their own costs in view of the questions raised in these petitions.