Iron Tug
1 seafarer abandoned on the Iron Tug (IMO 9363338, flag Mongolia) in Mumbai, India, 26 May 2025. ILO case 1606, status: Unresolved.
- Status
- Unresolved
- Abandonment ID
- 1606
- IMO Number
- 9363338
- Flag
- Mongolia
- Port of Abandonment
- Mumbai, India
- Abandonment Date
- 26 May 2025
- Notification Date
- 3 February 2026
- Seafarers
- 1
- Reporting Org.
- International Transport Workers' Federation
Circumstances
Outstanding wages for 3 months (March, April and May 2025)
The insurer information reported by the ITF:
P&I/Financial security insurer: Unknown
Seafarers applied to insurer?: No
Insurance certificate dates: TBC
Updates
26 May 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
(From ITF inspector)
Thank you for your email. I have gone through all and have some questions and doubts over your administrations approach with this. Please read the below summary of what you have sent and the reasoning behind it. I must reiterate that abandonment remains on the vessel until the Seafarer is fully paid. This is the system that is in place for this very reason, to ensure that when Seafarers are not paid, they have an asset as leverage to claim against. Otherwise, companies could set up, hire Seafarers, not pay them and close down. This is also why YYZ have insurance. They could use it and get him paid then recover from the manning agents or charterer.
Below are points from YYZ’s communication to you that I contest and why.
10. In Mr. ***’s email to Mr. *** of the ITF (Attachment 2), he similarly admitted that the entry of AHT IRON TUG as Master in his Seaman Book was made on his own accord.
The context matters here. He isn’t admitting anything, he is stating why this is the case as he explains prior to that statement the arrangements of his employment.
11. A comparison with the Seaman’s Books of the Vessel’s actual crew members clearly shows that the vessel stamp appearing in Mr. ***’s Seaman’s Book is inconsistent with the genuine vessel stamp, confirming that the entry was fraudulently made (Attachment 3).
Does this actually prove that? Looking at the comparison Captain ***’s Seamans book also has the stamps seen in the other books, it also has the extra Iron Tug one. It is more likely the other ones have not been stamped yet, this isn’t proof.
12. Upon understanding the implications of his actions, Mr. *** voluntarily withdrew his complaint with the ITF.
Careful wording to imply guilt. This is an assumption; it cannot be proven to be true. All that is true is that he withdrew his complaint with us.
It should also be noted that Mr. *** formally wrote to the ITF on 8 February 2026 withdrawing his complaint, stating that he wished to pursue the matter directly with M/S Swastik Offshore Services. However, the ITF representative, Mr. ***, appears reluctant to close the matter. A copy of Mr. ***’s withdrawal email is attached for reference (Attachment 4).
As this Seafarer was working on this vessel when he was not paid and abandoned under the terms of MLC 2006, the abandonment is filed against this vessel. It isn’t a case of being reluctant to close, it is a case of the case still being open until he has been paid by whoever is due to pay him. The options to resolve were clearly set out in my email to ***, 12/02/26. If it is to be resolved fully via the route Captain *** has taken (being the legal route) then that will need to be concluded. YYZ have the opportunity to resolve it quicker if they like.
Under Article II(3) of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006, where there is doubt as to whether a category of persons should be regarded as seafarers for the purposes of the Convention, the issue shall be determined by the competent authority of the Flag State. In light of the circumstances described above, we respectfully request that the Mongolia Maritime Administration: 1. Assess whether Mr. *** qualifies as a “seafarer” within the meaning of the MLC in relation to AHT IRON TUG, taking into account the nature of his engagement, his relationship with the Charterer rather than the Vessel owner, and the fact that he was not part of the Vessel’s manning and had fraudulently recorded service as Master in his Seaman’s Book;
Straight from MLC Article II
1.(f) seafarer means any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which this Convention applies.
He was working onboard.
2. Except as expressly provided otherwise, this Convention applies to all seafarers.
He is classed as a Seafarer.
3. In the event of doubt as to whether any categories of persons are to be regarded as seafarers for the purpose of this Convention, the question shall be determined by the competent authority in each Member after consultation with the shipowners’ and seafarers’ organizations concerned with this question.
Categories of persons, meaning collective, group of people, for the purpose of the convention, not used on a case-by-case basis, but for the purpose of the convention. The question shall be determined by the competent authority in each member AFTER consultation with the shipowners and seafarer’s organizations concerned with this question. Their statement isn’t accurate. Clearly this has been lifted, incomplete, from MLC and amended to suit the narrative then published as fact. This is fraudulent.
Not being a part of the vessel’s manning document doesn’t mean you are not working onboard. It just means that you are not required for basic operation of the vessel.
The effects of abandonment filing with the ILO are being felt, YYZ are using whatever they can to remove the abandonment. However, they need to understand that manipulating fact, assuming certainty and fabricating narratives won’t resolve this matter. Only full payment by whoever arranges it to Captain *** will ensure this is closed and abandonment lifted.
I have to disagree with your overall determination, we only have the word of YYZ that he admits any guilt, there is nothing in all that has been shared that he admits to what they claim.
It is correct that he has recorded himself as Master, he even states in his email he was second Master (Anchor Handler) onboard Iron Tug. Is that fraudulent, I’m not sure, but maybe “2nd” before it can be insisted on. Is this cause for his case to be closed while he is still owed money for his work onboard? Absolutely not.
These are the facts. Captain *** worked onboard Iron Tug and hasn’t been paid in full for more than two months constituting abandonment under the standards and regulations of MLC 2006. As such, abandonment has been filed against the vessel he was working on, with the ILO and will remain until he receives full payment.
Please revert with a solution.
23 April 2026: Mongolia
(From the Mongolia Maritime Administration)
Due to a complaint lodged regarding the alleged non-payment of wages to Mr. ***, the vessel has been included in the Abandonment List of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF).
The vessel AHT IRON TUG has been registered under the Mongolian flag since November 2023.
Based on the explanation and supporting information provided by the vessel owner (YYZ Maritime Management & Consultancy Sdn. Bhd.), we would like to present the following for your kind consideration:
During a charter period with Westfield Energy Resources Ltd. (“the Charterer”) in Mumbai, India, from 23 November 2024 to 10 September 2025, the Charterer arranged for Mr. *** to be placed on board the vessel as part of its own riding crew.
Mr. *** was neither employed, engaged, nor contracted by the vessel owner or manager, nor was he signed on as a member of the vessel’s crew under its approved manning arrangements.
His employment contract was concluded with M/S Swastik Offshore Services FZCO (the Charterer’s appointed manning company) under the contractor Steadpro – Westfield for Vessel/Barge Leighton Eclipse. Neither AHT IRON TUG nor its owner was identified as the employer in that contract.
Furthermore, it has been established that Mr. *** falsely recorded service on board AHT IRON TUG in his Seaman’s Book as Master. He has admitted that this entry was made on his own initiative with the intention of enhancing his future employment prospects. A comparison with the Seaman’s Books of the vessel’s actual crew members clearly demonstrates that the vessel stamp appearing in Mr. ***’s Seaman’s Book is inconsistent with the genuine vessel stamp, thereby confirming that the entry was fraudulently made.
In light of the above, Mr. *** cannot be considered a seafarer forming part of the crew of AHT IRON TUG.
We would therefore respectfully request that the listing of AHT IRON TUG in the ITF Abandonment List be reviewed and, if deemed appropriate, removed.
Due to Mr. ***’s fraudulent and unethical actions, this matter has caused reputational harm to the Flag State and the vessel’s owner and has also adversely affected the welfare and standing of the vessel’s legitimate crew members.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your kind consideration.
20 February 2026: International Maritime Organisation
The insurer is reported UNKNOWN, however on Equasis: The Shipowners’ Mutual P & I Association (Luxembourg)
3 February 2026: International Transport Workers' Federation
Seafarer received 50% wage for March and April 2025