JUDGMENT 1. - Imploring annulment of the order dated 10th of October 2012, passed by the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bhilwara, the appellants (employer) have preferred this appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1923'). 2. The appeal was presented on 7th of December 2012 and the office reported following four defects: 1. Certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the appeal not filed. 2. Valuation of the court fee left blank. 3. Rs. 10/- court fee not affixed on memo of appeal. 4. Synopsis not filed. Subsequently, the appellants have made good the second defect by affixing court fee of Rs. 10/-. However, the other defects were not taken care of. 3. Today, the matter came up before the Court and the Court, while overlooking defect No.3 & 4, pertinently asked the learned counsel for the appellants as to why the requisite certificate showing deposition of the amount of compensation has not been filed. Responding to the said query of Court, the learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in case the amount is deposited, the same will be disbursed to the respondent-claimants and it will not be possible for the appellants employer to recover the same. 4. From a bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923, it is crystal clear that for preferring appeal against an order by the learned Commissioner for compensation, interest and penalty, the period of limitation is 60 days. The third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 clearly envisages that an employer assailing the award of compensation is required to deposit the amount before the learned Commissioner and obtain a certificate to this effect and the said certificate is required to be accompanied with the memo of appeal. In want of certificate, the appeal is not competent. The third proviso sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 reads as infra: "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 appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against." 5. The language employed in third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is mandatory and an appeal preferred by the employer in want of requisite certificate cannot be entertained. 6. As the period of limitation has already expired on 9th of December 2012, since then almost nine months have elapsed, and the appellants have not made any endeavor to deposit the requisite amount and produce the certificate before this Court, the instant appeal is not at all maintainable. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants for not depositing the requisite amount as per mandatory provision contained in third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 is perse not tenable. The Act of 1923 is a welfare legislation and its object is to mitigate the hardship of a workman, who has suffered personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment causing harm or result in total or partial disablement, or which has resulted in his death. If the legislature has provided a mandatory condition for availing the remedy of appeal the said condition cannot be given go-by, nor such a condition is condonable by the Court. Admittedly, the appellants have not deposited the requisite amount of compensation before the learned Commissioner and that being so, in my considered opinion, the instant appeal is not at all competent. 7. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to proceed in the matter and the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 8. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******