Judgment:
Misc.
Appeal No.2910/2011 13.03.2013: Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
The respondent has opposed the maintainability of the appeal on the sole ground that in accordance with the provisions of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, it was mandatory that the appellant should have deposited the compensation amount along interest and penalty within 30 days of making the award.
In this case, appellant has not deposited the compensation amount within a period of 30 days from the date of award.
The acknowledgment which is relying upon shows that deposit has been made on 31st December, 2012 whereas the award is dated 30th April, 2011 and, therefore, the deposit is beyond the period of limitation within which it ought to have been deposited.
It is submitted that in view of that, present appeal is not maintainable.
Reliance has been made to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which reads as under : “30.
Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-- (a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half- monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half- monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b).unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided, further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against.
(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(3) The provisions of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (9 of 1908 ).shall be applicable to appeals under this section.”
Reference has also been made to a judgment of this Court delivered in M.A.No.386/2010 in the case of State of M.P.versus Rajbhan Singh and others on the similar issue of non-depositing of compensation within a period of 30 days in which following order was passed which reads as under : “ Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed, since it is not maintainable.
On bare perusal of the impugned award dated 17/8/2009, it is gathered that the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,182/- towards compensation to the claimants, who are the heirs and dependants of the deceased Smt.
Nanbai Gond.
Further, it has been directed to pay the amount within thirty days from the date of the award.
Thus, the appellant was required to deposit the said amount lastly by 16.09.09.
As per appellant, an amount of Rs.1,87,182/- has been deposited on 19/01/10 I.e.Much after thirty days, therefore, looking to the second proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the appellant was bound to deposit the aforesaid amount along with penalty and interest as directed by learned Commissioner and a certificate in that regard should have been obtained and should have been annexed with the memorandum of appeal.
Since, this has not been done, I am of the view that this appeal is not maintainable and, therefore, on the ground of maintainability, this appeal is dismissed without passing any order on IA No.890/2010, IA No.891/2010 and IA No.5443/12 Resultantly, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed on the ground of maintainability.”
In view of aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
(M.C. Garg) Judge ts