JUDGMENT 1. This is an employer's appeal filed under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act of 1923') against the award dated 25.10.2002 passed by Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation-cum-Labour Court, Ambikapur (for short "the Commissioner"), in case No. 10/B/W.C.Act.Fatal/2002 by which Commissioner has granted an amount of Rs. 2,01,747/- along with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment. 2. The memorandum of appeal filed by the employer is not accompanied with the Certificate issued by the Commissioner that appellant has deposited the awarded amount, the application for exemption for depositing the amount deposited against the appellant has been filed and registered as LA. No.437/ 2003. 3. Shri Pradeep Saxena, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that further time be granted to submit the certificate as required under 3rd proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923. 4. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 would submit that the 3rd proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923 is mandatory in nature and sufficient time has already been granted. He would further submit that appellant's writ petition No.2252/2003 challenging the notices issued pursuant to the award has already been dismissed, therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including order impugned. 6. Section 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act 1923 (in short "Act of 1923") provides as under: 30. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record including order impugned. 6. Section 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act 1923 (in short "Act of 1923") provides as under: 30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal Shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order 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 [ employee], 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: 7. Third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act of 1923 provides 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. 8. The Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 is a beneficial legislation, whereby interest of the workmen is sought to be protected. The object of adding third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30, is to ensure the compliance of the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation in the event of dismissal of the appeal filed by the employer, so that the workman is not required to run from pillar to post for getting the amount of compensation for years together. This becomes further apparent from the fact that the right of appeal under Section 30 is restricted by providing that an appeal under Section 30 would lie only on a substantial question of law. 9. This becomes further apparent from the fact that the right of appeal under Section 30 is restricted by providing that an appeal under Section 30 would lie only on a substantial question of law. 9. According to the third proviso of Section 30 (1) of the Act maintainability of appeal by employer is barred unless the memo of appeal was accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner that the appellant had deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. The proviso makes it incumbent for an employer-appellant to first pay the. money due under the order and then obtain a certificate from the authority concerned and this proof must be filed at the time of presentation of appeal. The provision is mandatory in nature and not merely directory and, as such the appeal filed without the accompanying certificate would be incompetent. 10. The whole act has been so as to sub-serve the cause of the employees and this provision has obviously been made with a view to curb and restrict the right of the employer to file an appeal so that he must first obey and comply with the order appealed against before his appeal could even be entertained. It is a wholesome provision and were if not so it would have been very easy for an employer to harass the poor employee by merely filing an appeal and then delay the payment of the money due to endless execution proceedings thus gaining an undue advantage over the injured employee who could thus be put to untold hardship. It is to avoid and obviate such difficulty that this provision had been made and I have no manner of doubt that the proviso can best serve the intention behind the legislation only if the same was held to be mandatory and not merely directory in nature. I have given careful consideration to the matter and I feel no hesitation in holding that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act filed by an employer would not be competent unless the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by the requisite certificate of the Commissioner. 11. The High Court of Patna in case of Bhurangya Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. I have given careful consideration to the matter and I feel no hesitation in holding that an appeal under Section 30 of the Act filed by an employer would not be competent unless the memorandum of appeal was accompanied by the requisite certificate of the Commissioner. 11. The High Court of Patna in case of Bhurangya Coal Co. Ltd. Vs. Sahebjan Mian and another has held as under: "there is sufficient force in the aforesaid observation yet the proviso to S. 30(1) of the Act on a true construction demands that the certificate should be filed along with the memorandum of appeal as an essential part of it. In other words, an appeal as contemplated by it cannot be said in law to be an appeal unless it is accompanied with the aforesaid certificate of the Commissioner. If that is the import of the proviso, which I think, it is difficult to resist on its language, then the filing of a memorandum of appeal cannot by itself amount in law to a formal presentation of an appeal unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied with the certificate referred to the proviso." 12. Thus, the appellant has not filed the certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that he has deposited the amount payable under the order impugned against and, therefore, the appeal as framed and filed is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. 13. The dismissal of appellant's writ petition granting liberty to him to raise all the grounds/objections in this appeal has no. bearing in this appeal as the appeal itself is not maintainable for the aforementioned reasons. 14. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable in absence of certificate as required under the 3rd proviso to Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. 15. No order as to cost. Appeal Dismissed.