India KamIn and ors. Vs. the Central Coal Fields Ltd. and ors.

- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. .....and has deducted the amount of contribution from the members, including the petitioners under the scheme, it is the employer who is supposed to maintain the statements of accounts in respect of deductions made from the employees/workers and to supply the same to the office of respondent no. 7.5. no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the central coalfields limited (respondent nos. 1 to 6).6. there is no denial from respondent nos. 1 to 6 to the claim of the petitioners that they were employees under the central coalfields limited and were employed in the opencast projects under the project officers and were members of the family pension scheme.7. in the light of the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, the petitioners are directed to file their representations afresh before the respondent no. 5 and before the regional cmpf commissioner, region ii, ranch!, (respondent no. 7) and within one month from the date of receipt of the representations from the petitioners, the respondent no. 5 shall communicate to the petitioners about the eligibility of their claim of pension amount, details of amounts deducted from the petitioners' wages and such other relevant material information, to the petitioners and also furnish the same to respondent no. 7 and thereafter within one month from the receipt of the representation and the necessary information for the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 7 shall order for release of the amount of pension payable to the petitioners.8. with the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of.