Judgment S.K.Jha, J. 1. These two letters patent appeals are directed against a common judgment in two cases arising out of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on the 20th of July, 1966. 2. The short facts relevant for the disposal of these two appeal are these. Shankar Mandal, respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 22 has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,050/- and Jageshwar Yadav, respondent in Letters Patent Appeal 23 has been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,450/- by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) by order dated the 20th of July, 1964. The appellant in both these cases preferred two appeals against the aforesid two awards before this Court. The award in favour of Shankar Mandal was the subject matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 290 of 1964 giving rise to Letters Patent Appeal No. 22, and that in favour of Jageshwar Yadav was the subject matter of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 289 of 1964 giving rise to Letters Patent Appeal No. 23. The learned Single Judge did not go into the merits of the Employers appellants claim regarding the validity or otherwise of the awards made by the Commissioner. Both the appeals were dismissed on a preliminary objection having been raised on behalf of the respondents that the appeals were not maintainable, since they were not in consonance with the third proviso to section 30(1) of the Act. The learned Single Judge held that the third proviso to section 30(1) read with section 8(2) of the Act rule 9 of the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 made it mandatory before an appeal could be entertained under section 30(1) by this Court that a deposit of the compensation awarded must be made in accordance with Form D appended to the Rules and the receipt for the deposit of such compensation must be in consonance with Form E. In support of the decision the learned Single Judge placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in The Bihar Journals Ltd. v. Nityanand Singh, which has laid down that the certificate which was enjoined by the third proviso to section 30(1) to be filed along with the memorandum of appeal must be a certificate as contemplated by section 8(2) of the Act read with rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9 in its turn has prescribed the form of deposit in Form D and the receipt for the deposit of such compensation in Form E. The Bench deciding the case of the Bihar Journals Ltd1., apart from holding that no certificate of the Commissioner was annexed with the memorandum of appeal presented to this Court, also held that the certificate which was subsequently filed in that case read with the receipt borne out by the treasury Challan which had been filed along with the memorandum of appeal could not be said to be a compliance of the mandatory provisions of the third proviso to section 30(1) of the Act. 3. Mr. Ali Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the Bench decision of this Court in the case of the Bihar Journals Ltd., needs reconsideration, as it does not lay down correctly the principles involved in such cases. Learned counsel submitted that since there was no set form of the certificate to be granted by the Commissioner either under the Act or under the Rules, then if it be shown that the amount of compensation awarded had actually been deposited in the Government treasury under the orders of the Commissioner and a certificate to that effect from the Commissioner was filed showing the factum of such deposit on behalf of the claimant, it should be deemed to be sufficient compliance of the provisions of the third proviso to section 30(1). In order to test the validity of the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant I think it worthwhile to quote some of the relevant provisions of the Act. In order to test the validity of the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant I think it worthwhile to quote some of the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 30(1) provides that "(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a commissioner, namely : (a) an order awarding as compensation a lumpsum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lumpsum ;" The third proviso reads thus "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 appellnt has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against." Admittedly, there is nothing to be found either in the Act or the Rules as to what would be the form of the certificate to be granted by the Commissioner. Therefore, it is necessary to look to the Act as a whole and to the other relevant provisions of the Act or the duly framed rules to find out as to what was contemplated by the Legislature by the term "a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable". In this respect section 8 deserves some attention. Sub-section (1) of section 8 provides generally that no payment of compensation in respect of workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lumpsum as compensation to a woman or a person under legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner. The proviso to that sub-section relaxes the rigor of the substantive statutory provision in so far as it makes it permissible for the employer to make a payment of an aggregate of one hundred rupees to the dependant of the workman concerned, which amount, if paid, will be liable to be credited for as against the amount to be fully deposited with the Commissioner in pursuance of sub-section (2) of section 8. Sub-section (2) of section 8 provides that any other sum amounting to Rs. 10/- or more payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. Sub-section (2) of section 8 provides that any other sum amounting to Rs. 10/- or more payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. Sub-section (6) of section 8 lays down that where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may. in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. It will thus be seen that even in so far as section 8 is concerned, it merely speaks of the compensation to be deposited with the Commissioner. As to the manner of such deposit with the Commissioner, rule 9, which is in pursuance of the Rule making power concerned under section 32(2)(k), apart from the general power conferred by section 32(1), lays down that an employer depositing compensation in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 8, shall furnish there with a statement in Form D ; and shall be given a receipt in Form E. It will thus be seen that so far as the deposit with the Commissioner is concerned, the Rules contemplate that such a deposit must be in consonance with the provisions of Rule 9 read with Forms D and E. In this context sub-section (3) of section 8 throws sufficient light on the point at issue. Section 8(3) of the Act runs thus "The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him. Thus the Act itself envisages a receipt by the Commissioner for the compensation to be "deposited with him" on behalf of the person entitled thereto in pursuance of section 8(2). 4. Mr. Ali Ahmed contended that the spirit of the Act and the Rules was merely to ensure the payment of the amount of compensation awarded to the workman or to such of his legal heirs as may be entitled thereto. 4. Mr. Ali Ahmed contended that the spirit of the Act and the Rules was merely to ensure the payment of the amount of compensation awarded to the workman or to such of his legal heirs as may be entitled thereto. Keeping in view this spirit of the enactment, it was suggested that it would be rather hyper-technical to hold that even though the money had been deposited to the credit of the workman concerned in the Government treasury and a certificate of the Commissioner though not in Form E had been filed along with the memorandum of appeal, yet the appeal be held to be not maintainable merely for non-compliance with Form D and E mentioned above. I do not think there is any substance in this contention of learned counsel, for it is well settled that under a special enactment there is no right of appeal unless given by the statute expressly. If there is no substantive right of appeal in such cases, then a right of appeal conferred by a special statutory provisions must also be cribbed and confined to the conditions and limitations imposed for the purpose of maintaining an appeal. If the statute says that a right of appeal will be subject only to the compliance by the appellant of a technical formality, it will not be proper for the Courts of Law to sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Legislature and to hold that any such technical requirement must not be rigidly adhered to. 5. Taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act as well as the Rules, I do not hold any doubt with regard to the correctness of the decision of this Court in the case of the Bihar Journals Ltd. For the reasons given above, I do not think there is any substance in either of the two appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs. S.N.P.Singh, J. 6 I agree.