JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - This is an appeal against the order dated 5-11-1962 of the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A preliminary objection has been taken that the Appellant has not filed with the memorandum of appeal a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the Appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. 2. Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act lays down that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order of the Commissioner awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise. The third proviso to the sub-section lays down 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. Sub-section (3) of the section makes provision regarding applicability of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act to appeals under this section. 3. The appeal was filed on 13-12-1962 and admittedly the required certificate from the Commissioner did not accompany the memorandum of appeal. On 28-1-1963 the Respondent appeared in the stay matter and took up the preliminary objection, and the matter was left open to be heard at the time of hearing. During the pendency of the appeal the deposit was made on 8-2-1963 and even thereafter no certificate of the Commissioner has been filed. 4. The Appellant has filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The grounds taken in the application were that the Act being a special statute it was not known to the Petitioner that such a deposit was to be made, and that the Petitioner was in difficultly and was not able to deposit the money. 5. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in Ramnivas v. Mariam AIR 1951 Patna 260. Their Lordships observed that where an appeal was filed in time but it was not accompanied by the certificate of the Commissioner, the case was to be liberally considered as appeals under the Act were not very common and the procedure of filing a certificate was unknown to the counsel. Their Lordships observed that where an appeal was filed in time but it was not accompanied by the certificate of the Commissioner, the case was to be liberally considered as appeals under the Act were not very common and the procedure of filing a certificate was unknown to the counsel. With respect I am not inclined to agree with this view. Undoubtedly the Workmen's Compensation Act is a special statute but that is why its provisions must be carefully examined to see if there is any infringement of any of the statutory provisions regarding appeals. Section 30 prescribes the procedure and the forum of appeal. The period of limitation is 60 days though ordinarily an appeal lies to the High Court within 90 days. A bare look to Section 30 would show that the third proviso makes it mandatory for the employer against whom an order has been passed under Clause (a) that the necessary deposit is to be made and the required certificate is to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal. This has also been provided for very good reasons. An employee is ordinarily a needy person. Even in first appeals questions of fact cannot be canvassed and the appeals are confined merely to substantial questions of law. The legislature was conscious that in such cases the payment of the amount awarded must not be delayed and the appellate court would be satisfied that the appeal becomes competent only after the amount is kept in deposit. The provision is not only mandatory but is salutary. Ignorance of law that it is a special statute would be no test for exercising one's discretion u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. 6. This Patna view has not even been followed in subsequent Patna decisions, AIR 1956 Patna 299. In AIR 1960 Orissa 39, my learned brother Justice Barman has also taken the same view. I hold that there is no sufficient cause made out. The application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and the appeal is not maintainable. 7. In the result, the appeal fails, but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed