CS 28
11 seafarers abandoned on the CS 28 (IMO 8309048) in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates, 31 December 2024. ILO case 1592, status: Unresolved.
- Status
- Unresolved
- Abandonment ID
- 1592
- IMO Number
- 8309048
- Port of Abandonment
- Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- Abandonment Date
- 31 December 2024
- Notification Date
- 16 January 2026
- Seafarers
- 11
- Reporting Org.
- International Transport Workers' Federation
Circumstances
Flag: Unknown
Seafarers unpaid since joining 13 months ago
P&I/Financial security insurer: Shipowners' Club (reported by the ITF)
Seafarers applied to insurer?: No
Insurance certificate dates: TBC
Updates
26 August 2026: Other
(From S&P Global)
Please note that I have updated the vessel to reflect name GOVINDA under the flag of United Arab Emirates under the ownership of KANHAA MARINE SERVICES FZE based on the certificate of registry that was provided.
These updates will reflect on the IMO GISIS module in due course (24 hours).
26 August 2026: International Maritime Organisation
Please find herewith attached a message and information which IMO received from KANHAA MARINE SERVICES FZE, concerning the Platform Supply Ship ‘CS 28’ aka ‘GOVINDA, IMO Number 8309048, Flag: United Arab Emirates, however UNKNOWN on IMO GISIS and before 1 January 2022: Comoros, having on board 11 seafarers from India who were abandoned in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates on 31 December 2024. The crew were unpaid since joining 19 months ago. The insurer is: The Shipowners' Club.
The received information is duly noted and will be recorded on the joint IMO/ILO database on abandonment of seafarers. I herewith would like to invite ITF who initially reported the new abandonment case to provide for an update on the status of the abandonment case. I herewith would also like to kindly request *** at S & P Global who is maintaining the IMO GISIS module, for an update on the status of the vessel.
26 August 2026: Other
(From KANHAA MARINE SERVICES FZE)
This is to inform you that we are the new owner for the vessel M.V GOVINDA
from 05/09/2025 after obtaining complete transfer formalities as per the rules and regulations of the MOEI from the old owners.
attaching the registry on our company name for your reference.
We hereby declare that we have no concerns with the crew complaint of 31-12-2024
kindly request you to please resolve the issue for our vessel.
to avoid any issue in joining and sign off the crew on our vessel m.v govinda
Also, we would like to inform you that, since we became the owner of the vessel , all the monthly salaries , provision, water and necessary medicines have been provided to all crew on time.
kindly look into this matter and resolve the issue on priority basis.
Thank you for your kind consideration and cooperation.
24 March 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
The owners of this vessel are serial abandoners and their exploitation on several vessels in recent times has been well documented.
I urge you to intervene to prevent the departure of the vessel in order to protect the abandoned seafarer on board.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email and advise on action taken in response.
24 March 2026: International Maritime Organisation
As in my previous message, I herewith kindly but urgently request that the maritime authorities from the responsible States, in particular the port and flag State United Arab Emirates take immediate action, as appropriate and will further liaise as in accordance with the 2022 ILO/IMO Guidelines on how to deal with seafarer abandonment cases.
All information received will be recorded on the joint ILO/IMO database on abandonment of seafarers.
24 March 2026: Other
(From the crew claiming)
I am writing to urgently report a life-threatening emergency on board the vessel ‘Govinda’ (IMO 839048, Clearing Port: Khali Port, UAE waters).
Despite the ongoing crew abandonment case and my unresolved salary dispute, the Harbour Master has granted inbound–outbound permission, and the ship is now moving out of port. My life is in immediate danger. If I am thrown overboard or harmed, I will not be able to protect myself.
Critical details:
Ship: Govinda (IMO 839048)
Port Authority Awareness: Port authorities were aware of this matter for several days and had kept the ship on hold, but today they suddenly allowed it to sail.
I fear I may be killed or thrown overboard if the ship continues to sail.
Status: I am forced to stay onboard without salary, under constant threat.
Immediate requests:
Immediately halt inbound–outbound movement of the ship to protect my life.
Immediate intervention from ITF, IMO, ILO and relevant authorities to ensure my protection.
Physical extraction or safe harbour placement to remove me from imminent danger.
Ensure that my salary dispute and legal rights are fully respected before any ship operations.
This is an emergency, and I request immediate action. Blocking the ship’s inbound–outbound movement is critical; otherwise my safety cannot be guaranteed.
Please confirm receipt of this email and advise on the urgent steps being taken.
23 March 2026: International Maritime Organisation
As in my previous message, I take it that the maritime authorities from the responsible States will further liaise as in accordance with the 2022 ILO/IMO Guidelines on how to deal with seafarer abandonment cases.
23 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
Thank you for your email and for your attention to my case.
I respectfully inform you that I am currently unable to leave the vessel, as doing so without proper clearance and settlement may put me at serious legal and professional risk.
I kindly request your urgent assistance to ensure payment of my outstanding salary and to arrange my official sign-off in accordance with applicable regulations, as my salary remains unpaid.
Once my salary is settled and sign-off is completed, I will fully cooperate and make myself available to attend the meeting at your office at the earliest opportunity.
I sincerely request your immediate intervention in this matter.
23 March 2026: United Arab Emirates
(From the MOEI)
The Directorate of Maritime Transport Affairs of this Administration would like to have a meeting with you in person at our office based at ***. Please let us know at your convenience so that we can arrange to bring you to our office.
22 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
All concerned authorities are already aware that I reported suspected illegal operations onboard the vessel.
Today (22/03/2026), the company has urgently signed on a new Captain, Chief Engineer, and Chief Officer (Indonesian crew) onboard. This sudden arrangement of new crew appears to be an attempt to conceal the reported illegal activities and shift responsibility onto me.
It is clear that these actions have been taken today to make the company appear compliant and innocent in front of all authorities.
I believe this is a direct retaliation against me and an effort to falsely implicate me.
My salary is still unpaid, and I do not consent to any forced sign-off.
Kindly take immediate action and ensure my protection.
22 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
All concerned authorities are already aware of my case, which is registered with International Maritime Organization / International Labour Organization Joint Database.
Despite this, the local agent (Mesco Marine Services, Sharjah) is asking me to sign off without clearing my pending salary and says an immigration officer will take me from the vessel.
I clearly state that my salary is still unpaid and I do NOT agree to sign off without full settlement.
This is illegal and against IMO/ILO guidelines.
Kindly take immediate action.
21 March 2026: India
(From the Maritime Administration of India)
Reference is invited to your email dated 19 March 2026 regarding the Certificate of Competency (CoC) held by ***.
1. The Directorate General of Shipping, Government of India, acknowledges the position conveyed by the UAE Maritime Administration that the said CoC titled Second Master of an Inland Motor Vessel does not meet the requirements prescribed under the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978, as amended, for service onboard UAE-flagged vessels.
3. In this regard, it is submitted that the said certificate has been issued under the applicable national regulations governing inland vessels in India and is distinct from Certificates of Competency issued in compliance with the STCW Convention. The position of your Administration in recognizing only STCW-compliant CoCs for service onboard UAE-flagged vessels is noted and has been conveyed to the concerned individual.
4. However, it is also brought to your kind attention that under Regulation I/14 of the STCW Convention (Responsibilities of Companies), the primary responsibility rests upon the company to ensure that:
4.1 Each seafarer assigned to its ships holds an appropriate and valid certificate in accordance with the Convention and Flag State requirements;
4.2 Ships are manned in compliance with safe manning requirements;
4.3 Seafarers are duly trained, medically fit, and properly familiarized with their duties; and
4.4 All relevant documentation regarding competency, training, and experience is maintained and verified.
5. In view of the above, if a seafarer not holding an appropriate STCW-compliant certification has been engaged or deployed onboard a UAE-flagged vessel, the responsibility squarely lies with the company for failure to ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the Convention in accordance with the Rules and regulations of the UAE Maritime administration.
6. Further, attention is invited to the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, particularly:
6.1 Section 6 (Resources and Personnel), which mandates that the Company shall ensure that each ship is manned with qualified, certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and international requirements;
6.2 The Company shall establish procedures to ensure that new personnel and personnel transferred to new assignments are given proper familiarization with their duties; and
6.3 The Company shall ensure that all personnel involved in the Company’s Safety Management System have an adequate understanding of relevant rules, regulations, codes, and guidelines.
These provisions clearly place responsibility on the Company to ensure that only duly qualified and certified personnel are engaged onboard vessels.
7. Further, attention is invited to Article 94 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which places a clear obligation on the Flag State to effectively exercise its jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag. This includes ensuring: that ships are adequately and appropriately manned; that the master, officers, and crew possess the requisite qualifications and competence; and that internationally accepted standards relating to safety, training, and labour conditions are strictly adhered to.
8. Additionally, under the provisions of the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006, particularly:
8.1 Regulation 1.3 (Training and Qualifications): requiring that seafarers are trained and certified as competent to perform their duties;
8.2 Regulation 2.1 (Seafarers’ Employment Agreements): ensuring that employment terms, including wages, are clearly defined and honoured; and
8.3 Regulation 4.3 (Health and Safety Protection): mandating safe working conditions onboard,
the Flag State and shipowners are obligated to ensure that seafarers are engaged in full compliance with international standards and that their rights and welfare are protected.
9. In this context, it is also not clear whether the concerned company had obtained prior approval/clearance from the UAE Maritime Administration for employing the subject seafarer or seafarers have been engaged with the STCW CoC issued by other member States of the IMO.
10. However, in all foregoing cases, the responsibility for ensuring compliance with certification and manning requirements rests with the company operating under UAE jurisdiction.
11. Further, it is pertinent to highlight that no seafarer can be deployed onboard a foreign-flag vessel in a capacity such as Master without the involvement and due diligence of the shipping company or Ship owners. Therefore, any lapse in ensuring compliance with certification requirements constitutes a failure on the part of the company.
12. In light of the above, it is requested that the UAE Maritime Administration may kindly examine the compliance of the concerned company with the provisions of ISM Code under SOLAS, STCW, UNCLOS, MLC, 2006, other applicable international instruments and may take appropriate action in the matter.
13. It is further requested that, in view of the apparent lapse, the company may be directed to:
13.1 Settle all outstanding wages and dues payable to ***;
13.2 Ensure full and final settlement in accordance with applicable employment agreements and international conventions; and
13.3 Facilitate his safe and timely repatriation to India.
The Directorate General of Shipping remains committed to ensuring that Indian seafarers are deployed strictly in compliance with international conventions and that their welfare and rights are adequately protected. We look forward to your kind cooperation in resolving the matter expeditiously.
20 March 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
While I appreciate the input from MTA after many unanswered emails, you don't seem to be proposing any solution or way forward for this issue.
At present the company Sea Sail Shipping currently has three vessels in UAE waters.
CS 28 aka Govinda (IMO 839048; Flag Unknown)
SHREENATH JI (IMO 936192; Flag Panama) – note this vessel formerly known as Seashine 7 and has been reported as abandoned twice before in 2023 and 2024
Surdushan (IMO 1043592; Flag Unknown)
It seems that the company has hired masters and then looked for excuses not to pay them. Irrespective of any issues with certificates and qualifications, these individuals should be afforded their rights. As these individuals were hired as masters and have completed their work as masters, they should be padi as such. The company should face the consequences for failing to ensure that they met the standards required by the UAE.
It appears to ITF that this company is moving individual workers across international borders under false pretences. The individuals have applied for jobs in good faith and have been met with a company that seeks to exploit their labour, refuses to pay their wages and issues threats against them when they complain at their treatment.
This treatment carries the indicators of forced labour and human trafficking.
If the UAE is serious about the welfare of the seafarers that work in their waters, then further action is required.
Please take note that the ITF intends to raise this case at the upcoming IMO Legal Committee meeting as an example of failure from port state authorities to respond to reported abandonments.
I urge you to carry out an investigation of the recruitment practices used by Sea Sail Shipping and take appropriate action.
I further urge you consider the named vessels "violating ships" as per CABINET RESOLUTION NO. (71) OF 2021 and take action as appropriate.
Finally, I would remind you of the Guidelines on how to deal with seafarer abandonment cases published by ILO and IMO https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_860595.pdf
I look forward to hearing from you on further suggestions to resolve this matter.
19 March 2026: International Maritime Organisation
I take it that the maritime authorities from the responsible States will further liaise as in accordance with the 2022 ILO/IMO Guidelines on how to deal with seafarer abandonment cases.
19 March 2026: India
(From the Consulate General of India, Dubai)
May kindly see the clarification received from Capt. ***, Director of Mariane Transport Affairs Department, UAE.
DG Shippling may advise seafarer Mr. *** suitably on the basis of this clarification.
19 March 2026: United Arab Emirates
(From the Marine Transport Affairs Department)
Further to our previous correspondence, the UAE Maritime Administration has informed you that it does not recognize the attached Certificate of Competency (COC) titled Second Master of an Inland Motor Vessel, as it has been issued under the regulations of a specific state and does not meet the applicable requirements of the UAE Maritime Administration.
Accordingly, you are not permitted to serve in the capacity of Captain on UAE-flagged vessels.
Please note that this Administration recognizes only Foreign Flag COCs issued in compliance with STCW Regulations. Therefore, regardless of the vessel owner, you cannot be appointed as a Captain on UAE flag vessel , as you do not hold the appropriate certification meeting the flag requirements.
17 March 2026: International Maritime Organisation
Flag: allegedly United Arab Emirates, however UNKNOWN on IMO GISIS and before 1 January 2022: Comoros
As communicated previously I herewith would like to kindly call on all responsible States to take urgent and immediate action, as appropriate.
17 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
I am writing to urgently report a very serious and dangerous situation that I am currently facing onboard the vessel.
Previously, when the vessel owner submitted their response to the authorities, I presented the real facts and supporting information before the authorities. After this, the owner informed the crew that there is an issue with proper manning and falsely told them that I complained against the crew and that I am trying to trap a crew member.
Because of this misinformation given by the owner, the crew has now turned completely against me.
Yesterday , while I was sitting outside on the deck, some crew members entered my cabin, removed my personal belongings and bags, and threw them into another crew cabin without my permission. My cabin has effectively been taken away from me.
Additionally, I have been denied food by the crew and they are refusing to provide meals.
Most seriously, I have also received direct threats from crew members acting under the influence of the company. They told me that if I send any more emails or complaints to the authorities, they will throw my phone into the water and they will kill me.
Because of this, I am in fear for my life and safety onboard the vessel. I am currently being harassed, threatened and isolated.
I respectfully request the competent authorities to take urgent action to:
1. Ensure my immediate safety and protection onboard.
2. Stop the harassment, intimidation and threats against me.
3. Ensure that I receive food and basic living conditions as required under MLC regulations.
4. Investigate the conduct of the vessel owner and the current situation onboard.
This situation is extremely urgent and I request immediate intervention from the authorities.
Thank you for your urgent attention.
16 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
I am writing in response to the recent communication circulated by the former owners of M.V. Govinda, questioning my status as Master and alleging abandonment. I categorically deny these allegations and wish to clarify the verified facts.
1. Engagement and Certification
I joined the vessel as Master based on verified documents and my resume, which were submitted to and accepted by the owners.
During the 2025 vessel survey, I submitted all required documents to the company. On 27 February, the owners themselves sent a screenshot of my resume/documents to the authorities, which are exactly the same documents I had submitted at the time of joining.
I have never claimed to possess any documents other than those submitted and verified at joining. I worked solely based on the documents that were checked and accepted by the owners.
Furthermore, the company is now alleging that I did not possess valid documents while serving as Master. However, I have been serving as Master on board this vessel since October 2024.
If the company genuinely believed that my documents were not valid, it raises a serious question regarding the vessel’s Annual Survey conducted in 2025. At the time of the 2025 Annual Survey, I was the only Master physically present and serving on board the vessel.
Therefore, it is necessary to clarify which Master’s Certificate of Competency (COC) and documentation were submitted by the company to the surveyor and the flag administration for the purpose of completing the survey.
If the company is now claiming that my documents were invalid, the authorities may kindly verify whose Master COC and credentials were presented during the survey process.
It is also important to note that the Chief Engineer was not on board during the survey. The company managed and submitted the required documents remotely, which demonstrates that any deficiencies or survey management issues fall under the responsibility of the owners and not the Master.
2. Completion of Contract and Salary
I completed my contractual period and properly handed over the vessel to my reliever.
Under MLC 2006 (Regulation 2.1 – Payment of Wages), a seafarer is entitled to full wages for the completed contract period. The owners’ refusal to release my salary is therefore unlawful.
Allegations regarding invalid documentation were never raised during the contract period or during the survey. If the owners genuinely believed that my documents were invalid, they could have terminated my service or signed me off immediately.
No communication was made during the contract period via email, WhatsApp, or formal letter regarding any alleged invalid documentation. Only after I filed a complaint with ITF did the owners raise these allegations, which appears to be an attempt to avoid lawful payment and damage my professional record.
The company repeatedly created risk for me by offering payment only as OS or AB wages while refusing to acknowledge my contractual position as Master. At no point during the contract period did the company offer my rightful Master salary.
I respectfully inform the authorities that if the company clears my Master salary immediately, I will sign off and return home without further issue. My only request is that the authorities facilitate the release of my earned salary as per the completed contract.
3. Pattern Across Captains / Company Practices
This issue is not limited to my case. Other Masters and Captains under the same company have faced identical treatment. For example, the Captain of M.T SHREENATH JI, a repeated Captain under the same company who served on the last sailing of the company’s vessels under the UAE flag (MV SUBHAN), completed his contract fully and company requested him again to join on MT SHREENATH JI after completion of this contract when he requested salary through ITF. The company responded with repeated allegations stating that he did not possess valid documents.
After seafarers complete their contracts, the company frequently manipulates partial payments by showing OS or AB wages as cleared while denying the rightful Master wages, even though Masters have completed full contractual duties.
Additionally, the company engages in questionable manning practices. When I joined, I was initially called for inspection on another vessel but was subsequently assigned directly to M.V. Govinda. The company appears to operate without a properly licensed manning structure and manages staffing across its sister vessels without proper authority.
Furthermore, I respectfully request the authorities to examine the company’s practices during vessel class surveys and regulatory inspections. It has been observed that during class surveys and submissions to flag state authorities, the company submits crew lists and Certificates of Competency (COC) details which may not accurately reflect the actual officers present on board the vessel.
In certain situations where required officers such as the Chief Engineer or Chief Officer were not physically present on board, the company appears to submit Certificates of Competency or documentation belonging to other officers in order to satisfy survey or regulatory requirements.
As a result, the crew physically present on board and the crew details submitted to authorities, class surveyors, or the flag administration may not correspond with each other. Authorities may verify this by reviewing past survey submissions, crew lists, and documents submitted to the flag administration and surveyors.
This appears to be a repeated pattern during vessel surveys conducted over several years.
4. Company Responsibility under MLC 2006
According to MLC 2006, Regulations 1.1 and 2.1, it is the company’s duty to verify all seafarers’ certificates, manage proper manning, and ensure lawful repatriation.
The Master, joining based on verified documents, relies entirely on the company to verify certificates, ensure proper crewing including Chief Engineer and other key officers, and manage contract completion in accordance with maritime regulations.
If a seafarer works for 12–14 months under documents that the company now claims are invalid, it reflects a failure of the company’s verification process rather than wrongdoing by the seafarer.
The company cannot shift responsibility to the seafarer for alleged invalid documentation or withhold lawful wages after the successful completion of the contract.
5. Professional Integrity
I acted professionally, completed all duties, and submitted verified documents. Any claims of abandonment or invalid certification are factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence.
6. Request to Authorities
I respectfully request the relevant authorities to:
• Recognize that my engagement as Master was lawful and based on documents accepted by the company.
• Ensure that the owners’ refusal to pay my wages does not affect my professional standing.
• Take note of the company’s pattern of harassment, illegal manning practices, and mismanagement.
• Inspect the vessel if necessary to verify current crewing arrangements and operational compliance.
• Consider that this pattern affects multiple Masters and is not an isolated case.
15 March 2026: Other
(From the Legal Representative of the shipowner)
I write on behalf of the former owners of the vessel M.V. Govinda in response to your email forwarding a communication from Mr. ***, who has described himself as the “Master” of the vessel.
At the outset, my client respectfully records its concern regarding the circulation of the said communication without prior verification of the certification status and authority of the individual concerned.
Under the regime established by the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, a person may serve as Master of a vessel only if he holds a valid Certificate of Competency issued or recognised by the competent maritime administration. The status of Mr. *** as “Master” of the vessel is presently seriously disputed.
While Mr. *** was initially engaged under a crew agreement based on his representations regarding his professional qualifications, subsequent circumstances have raised substantial doubts regarding the authenticity of his alleged Master certification. Accordingly, my client is formally requesting the Directorate General of Shipping to verify whether Mr. *** holds any valid Certificate of Competency authorising him to act or represent himself as Master of a vessel.
My client also records its serious concern regarding the communication circulated by Mr. @@@ of the International Transport Workers' Federation, which appears to have been issued at the behest of Mr. *** and forwarded to you and the International Labour Organization without prior verification of the relevant facts.
The said communication not only proceeds on the unverified assumption that Mr. *** was serving as “Master” of the vessel M.V. Govinda, but also extends sweeping and unsupported allegations against my client in relation to other vessels with which, as informed, my client has no operational or ownership nexus.
My client respectfully submits that the circulation of such unverified and generalized accusations, particularly across multiple vessels, is wholly unwarranted and risks introducing materially inaccurate information into the reporting framework maintained by the International Maritime Organization and the International Labour Organization.
It is further clarified that the allegation of “abandonment” is factually incorrect. All contractual wages due to Mr. *** have been paid in full, and sign-off and repatriation arrangements were offered on two separate occasions, which he declined.
In these circumstances, my client respectfully requests that the International Maritime Organization may kindly:
1. Take note that Mr. ***’s claimed status as Master of the vessel is disputed and subject to verification by the competent maritime administration;
2. Seek confirmation from the Directorate General of Shipping regarding his certification status; and
3. Refrain from recording or characterising the matter as a seafarer abandonment case in the joint International Labour Organization / International Maritime Organization database until the relevant certification and factual circumstances have been duly verified.
My client remains ready to provide all relevant documentation, including the crew agreement, wage records, and correspondence concerning the repatriation arrangements offered.
This communication is made without prejudice to all rights and remedies available to my client and shall not be construed as any admission in relation to allegations circulated through the International Transport Workers' Federation.
12 March 2026: International Maritime Organisation
Further to the message that ***, ITF, sent on 27 February 2026 concerning the vessels CS 28 aka Govinda (IMO 839048; Flag Unknown); SHREENATH JI (IMO 936192; Flag Panama), and Surdushan (IMO 1043592; Flag Unknown but Togo at the time of the abandonment, I herewith forward a message just received from Mr. ***, Master of the M. V. GOVINDA Imo no – 8309048.
I herewith would like to reiterate the urgency that all responsible States take appropriate action in relation to these cases immediately.
All information received will be recorded on the joint ILO/IMO database on abandonment of seafarers.
12 March 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
I am ***, serving as the Master on the vessel Govinda. I am writing to urgently seek your intervention regarding my pending salary and extremely difficult onboard conditions.
It has been 16 and a half months since I have received any salary. Despite repeated requests and reporting all details to the authorities, no action has been taken. The company has a repeated pattern of delaying salary and ignoring obligations.
Now, even my reliever does not have the COC, and I have informed everyone about this. Today, proper manning is still not on board, yet I have continued to perform my duties fully. Despite this, the owner is refusing to release my salary.
During this time, I am being mentally and physically harassed daily. I am under extreme stress and hardship.
I have a young son, and my family is waiting anxiously for me at home. I am extremely worried about them and myself. I urgently request your immediate intervention to:
Ensure that my outstanding salary is released immediately.
Address the harassment by the owner and ensure proper protection.
Confirm official action and response from your side as soon as possible.
I have already provided all information to the authorities, yet no help has been received. Immediate action is needed, as I cannot continue under these conditions, and my family depends on me.
Thank you for your prompt attention and support. I look forward to your immediate response.
27 February 2026: Other
(From the seafarer claiming)
I am placing this on official record regarding the continued false and retaliatory allegations being raised against me after completion of my contract and performance of duties onboard.
1. Contract Completion & Post-Facto Allegations
My contractual period was completed, and I performed full duties as assigned by the company. At no time during my service was any objection raised regarding my Certificate of Competency (CoC), documentation, or eligibility.
Only after I demanded my lawful wages and approached authorities, the company started alleging that my CoC was not valid. Raising such allegations after taking work from me and after contract completion is clearly retaliatory and mala fide.
2. Violation of Maritime Labour Convention (MLC 2006)
Under the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006:
• Regulation 2.1 – Seafarers’ Employment Agreements
The employer must ensure clarity and legality of the agreement before engagement. If I was deployed and assigned rank, the company had already accepted and verified my credentials.
• Regulation 2.2 – Wages
Seafarers are entitled to full payment of wages for work performed. Wage disputes cannot be avoided by subsequently inventing document-related objections.
• Regulation 5.1.5 – On-board Complaint Procedures & Protection
A seafarer who files a complaint must be protected from victimization or retaliation. The timing of these allegations clearly shows retaliation after my complaint.
The spirit and protection framework of MLC 2006 do not allow an employer to:
- Take services from a seafarer,
- Complete contractual obligations,
- And then fabricate document-related allegations to avoid wage payment.
3. Attempt to Mislead Authorities
The company is attempting to mislead authorities by presenting selective and distorted information. If there was any issue regarding documentation, it should have been raised before deployment, not after completion of work and wage claim.
4. CoC Allegation
If the company genuinely believed my CoC was invalid, why was I:
- Issued joining instructions?
- Assigned rank?
- Allowed to perform duties?
- Not signed off immediately?
This clearly demonstrates that the present allegations are an afterthought designed to escape wage liability.
I respectfully request the authorities to:
- Examine this matter under MLC 2006 protections,
- Investigate the retaliatory nature of these allegations,
- Ensure payment of my earned wages as per rank served,
- Ensure I am not victimized for exercising my lawful right to file a complaint.
My claim remains strictly limited to earned wages and proper sign-off documentation.
I remain fully cooperative with any independent verification.
27 February 2026: Other
(From the shipping company)
Thank you for your lack of knowledge and supporting illegimate and fake seamans for your desired extorcious , one sided ill behaviour for your personal benefits .
At least before mailing against us unblock us . And further i will ask my lawyer to put a criminal defermation case for spoiling our company image with the support of fake complaints.
27 February 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
Please note that the owners of this vessel have been repeatedly reported to the ILO/IMO Joint Database on Abandonment of Seafarers for failure to pay wages and failure to repatriate.
ITF believes that they are responsible for the following vessels.
CS 28 aka Govinda (IMO 8309048; Flag Unknown)
SHREENATH JI (IMO 9361926; Flag Panama)
Sudarshan (IMO 1043592; Flag Unknown)
The company has routinely failed to pay wages and then accused masters of wrongdoing in an effort to avoid paying what was agreed. They have also routinely issued threats of violence, imprisonment and unjustified legal action.
In my view, the actions of the company amount to forced labour.
ITF urges all responsible states to take appropriate action in relation to these cases immediately.
We also request that ILO attach this statement to the abandonment records of each of the named vessels.
24 February 2026: Other
(From the International Group of P&I Clubs)
I have contacted my colleagues at the Shipowners' Club. I have asked them to investigate the underwriting history of the ship bearing IMO number 8309048. The Club confirms that it has no record of the vessel ever having been entered. We cannot say how or why the Club has been associated with the vessel , but we have noted that Seaweb has incorrectly listed the Shipowners' Club as the ship's P&I Club since 2007. This information is now and always has been incorrect.
It is of course possible that if the vessel was furnished with MLC certificates of financial security bearing the Shipowners' Club name then such certificates will be fraudulent.
In the circumstances, I respectfully request an amendment to the abandonment report removing the Shipowners' Club name and that the comments above are added to the report. Your assistance and cooperation is appreciated.
19 February 2026: International Maritime Organisation
Flag: UNKNOWN, however on IMO GISIS before 1 January 2022: Comoros
16 January 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
Vessel is sailing as ‘GOVINDA’
1 seafarer complaining on behalf of the entire crew Cash advance received of 500 AED
We’re under the impression the Flag State is UAE and they we’re contacted on 15th January 2026