CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), from an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Dharwar (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner), directing the appellant to pay Rs. 2314 as compensation to the respondent, the widow of a deceased workman. ( 2 ) WHEN the appellant presented the memorandum of appeal, he did not produce along with it a certificate to the effect that he had deposited with the Commissioner the amount payable under the order appealed against. The Office of this Court had raised an objection in regard to non-production of such certificate. The Bench which considered that objection, made the following order on 14-6-1968:"heard. Register the appeal. Office objection left open for decision at the hearing of the appeal after notice to the respondent. " ( 3 ) EVEN now the appellant has not deposited with the Commissioner the amount payable under the order now under appeal. The third proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 30 of the Act reads:"provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall be 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" ( 4 ) IT is clear frcm the above proviso that an appeal by an employer against an award of compensation, is incompetent unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate that he (the employer) has deposited the amount of such compensation. In other words, depositing such amount of compensation and producing a certificate for having made such deposit, are pre-requisites for presenting the memorandum of appeal. Unless such certificate accompanies the memorandum of appeal, it (such memorandum) cannot be regarded as having been validly presented and the appeal cannot be regarded as having been validly instituted. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Mr. In other words, depositing such amount of compensation and producing a certificate for having made such deposit, are pre-requisites for presenting the memorandum of appeal. Unless such certificate accompanies the memorandum of appeal, it (such memorandum) cannot be regarded as having been validly presented and the appeal cannot be regarded as having been validly instituted. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Mr. Suresh Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the appellant was disputing his having been the employer of the deceased workman and that the requirements of the aforesaid proviso (that the appellant should deposit the amount of compensation awarded and produce the certificate of such deposit, along with the memorandum of appeal) are applicable only to an appellant who admits that he was an employer in relation to an injured workman or a workman who died in an accident and not to an appellant who disputes his having been the employer of such workman. ( 6 ) IN the aforesaid proviso, the term 'employer' is used in contradistinction to the injured workman or the dependant of a deceased workman who had made an application for compensation and who can also appeal from an order of the Commissioner if he feels aggrieved by such order. The intention of the Legislature in enacting that proviso appears to be that the injured workman or the dependant of a deceased workman who has been awarded compensation by the Commissioner, should not be put to any difficulty in realising such amount of compensation on account of any recalcitrance of the employer or on account of the vicissitudes of his (the employer's) financial position after he prefers an appeal. This object of the Legislature will be defeated, if we accept the interpretation put forward by Mr. Joshi and hold that that proviso is applicable only to an appellant who admits that he was such employer and not to an appellant who disputes the finding by the Commissioner that he was such employer. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Joshi that the appellant could file the appeal without depositing the amount of compensation as he was denying his having been the employer in relation to the decease workman. ( 7 ) MR. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Joshi that the appellant could file the appeal without depositing the amount of compensation as he was denying his having been the employer in relation to the decease workman. ( 7 ) MR. Joshi next contended that the failure of appellant to deposit such amount of compensation and to produce along with the memorandum of appeal the certificate of such deposit, should be regarded as a mere irregularity which does not render the appeal invalid. We are unable to accept this contention. As stated earlier, such deposit and prorduction of a certificate of such deposit, are pre-requisites for presenting the memorandum of appeal and the absence of such deposit and non-compliance with such requisites, cannot be regarded as a mere irregularity not affecting the validity of the appeal. ( 8 ) LASTLY, Mr. Joshi urged that we should postpone hearing the appeal and grant time to the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation and to produce the certificate of such deposit, that the memorandum of appeal should be regarded as being presented on the date of production of such certificate, that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and that thereafter the appeal should be heard on merits. ( 9 ) AT least when the Office raised the objection that the memorandum of appeal was not properly presented on account of the omission to make such deposit and to produce such certificate, the appellant became aware of the infirmity in his appeal. Yet he took no steps to remedy such infimity. The amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, was also not so large as to be beyond the means of the appellant who, according to his own admission, owned a motor lorry at one point of time. Hence, at this distance of time, we do not find any good grounds to accede to the request of Mr. Joshi. ( 10 ) AS this appeal cannot be regarded as having been validlv instituted, we dismiss it in limine and with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 75. --- *** --- .