AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Binod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Biharl, JJ.—When we pointed out to Shri J. N. Tiwart, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant as to where are the substantial questions of law in the memorandum of appeal, he comes up with a stand that the same is not required to be stated. We are astonished by the stand taken by Shri Tiwari.
2, Section 30 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act 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 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 ;
l(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty u/s 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 dependent;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same subject to condillons;
Provided that no appeal shall tie 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 Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963). shall be applicable to appeals under this section."
Under the first proviso, an appellant is required to state what are the substantial questions of law involved in his appeal because the Legislature categorically lays down a condition that no appeal shall lie against any order unless substantial question of law is involved in the appeal.
We accordingly, overrule the stand of Mr. Tiwart, but instead of dismissing this appeal for the aforementioned infirmity, we grant time till 13th April, 2000 to file the substantial questions of law allegedly involved in this appeal, falling which the memorandum of appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench.