Mumbai, April 5 -- The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a shipping company challenging the compensation it was asked to pay the daughter of one of its shipmasters who died in 2012 while on earned leave. Observing that this was a "classic case where every possible obstacle is sought to be created for avoiding payment of the death compensation claim," the court ordered Teekay Shipping (India) Private Limited (TSIPL) to pay $246,780 (approximately Rs.2.28 crore) to the daughter of the late Captain Baldev Singh Dhinsa within eight weeks, as per his employment contract. In their judgment of March 24, justices S M Modak and Sandeep Marne observed that this was a "tragic case" in which Dhinsa's daughter was awaiting the death compensation "for the last 14 long years". TSIPL had approached the high court, challenging a July 2017 order of the first appellate authority (FAA) directing the company to pay the death compensation to Ambika Dhinsa, 44, in accordance with the terms of her father's employment contract. Captain Dhinsa was employed with TSIPL as a shipmaster from 1990 until his death on November 13, 2012. He had fallen ill in October 2012 when he was on leave and was under treatment for six days before dying of a heart attack. Dhinsa's wife had died of cancer in 2008. After his death, Ambika and her brother Gaurav approached TSIPL for their father's dues and also submitted a death compensation claim to the company. While the company cleared the dues as per Dhinsa's employment contract, it turned down the death compensation claim. Ambika then approached the Directorate General (DG) of Shipping in July 2013. TSIPL told the maritime authority that there was no provision for death compensation as Dhinsa had died while on leave. While the director of the Seamen's Employment Office, which comes under DG Shipping, had turned down Ambika's claim in October 2014, she filed an appeal before the principal officer or the FAA. In 2017, the FAA allowed Ambika's appeal and directed TSIPL to pay the death compensation in accordance with the terms of Dhinsa's contract. Challenging the FAA's order in the high court, TSIPL cited various legalities and urged it to overrule the payment of compensation. It argued that the Merchant Shipping Act did not apply in this case because Dhinsa was employed on a foreign ship owned by Bermuda-based Teekay Shipping Limited. The court, however, said that TSIPL was not an independent entity but an Indian arm of the foreign company. TSIPL also questioned the jurisdiction of the Seamen's Employment Office and the FAA because Dhinsa was a master mariner and not a "seaman" as defined in the Merchant Shipping Act. Arguing for the shipping ministry, advocate Ashish Mehta said that TSIPL had not previously raised any objection to the jurisdiction of any authorities. Mehta stated that a master of the ship can also claim recovery of wages as a "seaman". He argued that the company had "conveniently disowned its own employee" of 23 years by keeping his family engaged in litigation to avoid the payment of compensation. The court observed that Dhinsa's death while on earned leave cannot be a ground for denying the death compensation to his heirs. It noted that Dhinsa's employment contract entailed a lump sum compensation for an illness or injury resulting in death "while being on earned leave"....