Ghanshyam vs Workmen's Compensation Commissioner Jaipur City

Mohammad Rafiq, J.—Application has been filed by the respondents for dismissal of appeal on account of failure of the appellant to deposit interest amount as required by third proviso to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what is required to be deposited as per third proviso to section 30(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 is the amount of compensation awarded in lump sum with reference to Clause-(a) of section 30(1) whereas interest or penalty u/s 4-A is mentioned under sub-section (1)(aa) of section 30 of the Act. Learned Counsel has in support of his arguments, relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Indo Aromatic Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Sarvesh Devi and others, 2008 (118) FLR 31 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Alimuddin and another, AAO No. 1050/1993, dated September 22, 1994.

In the case of M/s. Indo Aromatic Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Allahabad High Court has held that for the purposes of preferring an appeal statutory deposit of the amount means principal sum not interest or penalty and the appeal cannot be said to be not maintainable on that score. Likewise, in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shaik Alimuddin and another (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that since the third proviso reads that the deposit has to be made of the compensation awarded under clause (a) when an appeal is filed, it is not possible to accept the contention that the before filing appeal, penalty and interest also has to be deposited which is awarded under clause (aa).

The third proviso to section 30(1) of the Workmen''s Compensation Act reads as under:--

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.

As per above, the requirement of pre-deposit has been envisaged by third proviso only with respect to the principal amount payable under the order appealed against which is referable to Clause-(a) of section 30(1). Pre deposit of the amount of interest or penalty imposed u/s 4-A of the Act in addition to the compensation awarded or otherwise, is not a condition for maintainability of appeal u/s 30(1) of the Act. Thus, what is required to be deposited as pre-deposit as per section 30 of the Act is the principal sum payable as compensation and not the penalty or, interest. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find no ground to entertain the application filed by the respondents, it is hereby dismissed.