Prakash Kumar Panjwani vs Bisahin Bai

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently submit that petitioner is not in a position to make mandatory deposit as contained in

proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for brevity, 'Act of 1923') therefore, that amount be directed to be

reduced in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the submissions made herein above.

In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923

which provides 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-montly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim infull

or in part for a lump sum.

(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 [employee], 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) xxx  xxx  xxx

(3) xxx  xxx  xxx

A careful perusal of the aforesaid proviso would show that appeal under above stated provision shall not lie unless the memorandum of appeal is

accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed

against. The statutory mandate in shape of proviso to Section (1) of the Act of 1923 cannot be by-passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction and amount to

be deposited cannot be reduced. This Court has no option except to say no to the writ petitioner. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is

at liberty to avail the remedy available under the Act of 1923 in accordance with law. No cost(s).