Judgment :- 1. This writ petition seeks to challenge an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on 17-9-1987 awarding a sum of Rs.84,000/- by way of compensation to the applicant before him. 2. S.30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides an appeal before this Court, subject to the conditions contained therein. In the case of an employer, he is bound to deposit the amount awarded by the Commissioner before availing of the appeal. This provision is challenged by the petitioner as ultra vires. 3. I am not satisfied that the challenge is substantial enough. Under the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act, any serious injury to him has to be compensated, and quickly too. Time was when even an illness for a small spell of time, could shut out the flame of life in a workman's family. With the main candle shut out, the family itself will be in gloom and left in the cold. A summary procedure is therefore. provided under a benign enactment, so that the workman or his family in dire distress could get some support or solace from the employer or his contractor. The selection of the employment to which the Act is applicable, is indicative of an application of mind on the part of the authorities to all the relevant factors. Segments of accident prone activity are particularly noted where a workman plods along hazardous precipice of potential injury. It is only proper that he or his family is protected by quick first aids or effective treatments. Medical treatment is by itself insufficient. Economic treatment is of as much value. 4. Employers get attracted to a brisk business or other organised commercial activity, by the possibility of getting attractive profits. Generally the employers would be persons who by their intrinsic work or institutional arrangements, are in a position to provide various contingencies including accidents in relation to their establishment or the workmen. An appeal can pend for long. This period could be used for dishonest manipulation by an unscrupulous employer. The contingency has to be avoided. One sure way of avoiding such a situation where the workman will only have a victory was to insist on the compensation payable, as sooner as the finding of liability is entered by the Commissioner. In a sense, it protects the competing interest of the employer of the workman. The contingency has to be avoided. One sure way of avoiding such a situation where the workman will only have a victory was to insist on the compensation payable, as sooner as the finding of liability is entered by the Commissioner. In a sense, it protects the competing interest of the employer of the workman. The workman can feel secure about the compensation payable to him, by this statutory insistence. It may not be altogether unjust if in such a situation, actual payment is postponed by a short period. The appeal then could be processed, heard and disposed of without undue hustling or unnecessary strain. 5. Viewed from the point of view of the employer, it is not difficult for him to secure in these days necessary financial aid from the authority or institutions handling money. Even if it be a bit inconvenient, an ordinary employer would have the wherewithal to meet payments of that nature. The inconvenience caused in the process, is no reason to strike down the statutory provision. If in a given situation, compliance with the condition regarding deposit of compensation as determined by the Commissioner is avoidable, other circumstances may have to be found out for relief against the same. The situation would not, however, justify invalidating the proviso to S.30 which requires deposit of compensation before resorting to a leisurely appeal. The conduct of the petitioner as disclosed from the files, does not project his personality as that of one who wants to wage a war for the sake of principle. The files would disclose several cheap tricks which he had tried in the early stages when process and notices were sought to be served on him. He had an infinite genius to elude service of notices and process. The owner of a quarry, and well-versed with the use of explosives, he apparently tried to sabotage the workmen's compensation forum by the powder and line at his command. They had apparently misfired. 6. There are no good grounds for allowing the prayer in the petition. Contentions which should be covered by appeal, should not be taken up for garbling by a Constitutional court. 7. The writ petition is dismissed. Dismissed.