Judgment G.S. Sarraf, J.-Heard learned Counsels for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 211.1991 of the Commissioner for Workmens Compensation, Bharatpur and the only prayer in this appeal is that the learned lower Court has not awarded penalty whereas the appellant is entitled to a penalty of Rs. 18,406.25 with interest. 3. The short controversy involved in this appeal, therefore, is that whether an appeal is maintainable under Section 30 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for not awarding penalty. 4. Section 30(1) of the Act reads as under:-"a) an order as awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (aa) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A; .(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half -monthly payment; .(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; .(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 12; or .(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions." Clauses (a), (c) and (d) contemplate an appeal against an order allowing or disallowing a claim. Clause (e) similarly provides an appeal against registering or refusing to register a memorandum of agreement. However, Clause (b) speaks of an appeal against an order refusing to allow redemption but not an appeal against an order allowing redemption. Similarly Clause (aa) provides an appeal only against an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A, but it does not provide an appeal against an order refusing interest or penalty. Thus Section 30(1) (aa) of the Act contemplates an appeal against an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A of the Act but not against an order refusing to award interest or penalty and hence the present appeal is not competent. I am supported by a Judgment of M.P. High Court reported in 1993 (3) LLJ 653 . 5. The appeal is, therefore, held to be not maintainable and it is dismissed accordingly.