1. Vide order dated 18.05.2013, passed by Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short `the Act'), respondent No. 2 (Manzoor Ahmad Wani) has been held entitled to an amount of Rs. 12,80,000. An application has been filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award which too has been rejected. The appellant challenged the award by medium of writ petition (OWP) No 1275/2013. Vide order dated 18.09.2013, passed in IA No. 2060/2013, writ petitioner (now appellant) has been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within a period of two weeks, on such basis operation of the award has been directed to remain stayed. As per report of the Registry, amount is shown to have been deposited on 30-09-2013. 2. CMP No. 2344/2013 has been filed subsequently for treating the said writ petition as appeal which has not been objected to by the respondent No. 2 subject to objections to the maintainability of the appeal. Vide order dated 03.02.2014, said writ petition, has been treated as appeal i.e. instant subject to its maintainability. 3. Now maintainability of the appeal has been questioned on the count of non-compliance of 3rd Proviso to Section 30 of `the Act'. Section 30 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the orders of the Commissioner which include the award and the interest allowed thereon. The filing of the appeal is controlled by 3rd Proviso to Section 30(1) which reads as under: "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." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said Proviso, in essence, stands complied with because the awarded amount in pursuance of orders of the Court stand deposited. Submission is not tenable. Deposit of the awarded amount by the mode other than the one prescribed in Section 30 of `the Act' is impermissible. Such position has already been set at rest in three judgments rendered by this Court. 5. In the judgment Firm Amar Nath Baldev Raj Forest Lessees v. Des Raj and two Ors. rendered in C.F. Msc. Deposit of the awarded amount by the mode other than the one prescribed in Section 30 of `the Act' is impermissible. Such position has already been set at rest in three judgments rendered by this Court. 5. In the judgment Firm Amar Nath Baldev Raj Forest Lessees v. Des Raj and two Ors. rendered in C.F. Msc. Appeal No. 50 of 1998, it has been held that to accompany the memorandum of appeal with cheque for the amount awarded or to make deposit after long lapse of time is not compliance of the provisions of Section 30. While quoting the aforesaid Proviso, it has been held that "in cases of compensation under the Act, the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit being a social beneficial legislation for the protection and benefits of the weaker class of society the worker who is injured during the course of employment or on account of his death, whose survivors are entitled to claim compensation under the Act, their interest should be safeguarded by making it imperative on the part of the employer, in case he files an appeal, to deposit the awarded amount with the Commissioner". It has been further held that in absence of the accompanying certificate as required under proviso 3 to sub-section (1) of section 30 of the Act, which is a mandatory requirement, the appeal becomes incompetent and the defect is not cured by presentation of the cheque with the Memo of appeal in the High court. 6. In the judgment J&K SPC & anr v. Ghulam Mohammad, reported in 1992 Kash.LJ 244 : JKJ soft JKJ/12309, decided on 8th May, 1992, the important question which arose for determination, as referred to in Para 3 of the judgment, was `as to whether the amount deposited pursuant to court direction, though subject to just exceptions, can be held a substantial compliance of the requirement, prescribed in Proviso 3rd of Section 30 of the Act. Paras 4 and 5 are relevant to be quoted: "4. On a true interpretation of the proviso, the answer should always be in negative and this is so for a variety of reasons. It need be hardly emphasised that the relevant provision requires a memo of appeal to be accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner, certifying that the appellant had deposited the awarded amount with him. On a true interpretation of the proviso, the answer should always be in negative and this is so for a variety of reasons. It need be hardly emphasised that the relevant provision requires a memo of appeal to be accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner, certifying that the appellant had deposited the awarded amount with him. The provision admits of no a ubiquity and Legislature has been loud and clear in laying down the requirement and in using word "shall" to lend it a mandatory character. The statutory requirement, therefore, is certificate from the Commissioner and nothing less, it is not a cheque, a bank draft, and cash in deposit or any kind of security for that matter. In the ultimate analysis all these may serve the same purpose as the certificate, but since the Legislature has intended it to be that way it can be in no other way." "5. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that nothing short of a Commissioner's certificate can meet the statutory requirement and all other of security resorted to, constitute no valid substitute. Holding otherwise would amount to re-writing the statute, which is not the domain of this court." 7. Again in another judgment captioned United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sushma Devi and others, reported in 2011(1) JKJ 522 [HC] , it has been held that "appeal not accompanied by the requisite certificate instead accompanied by cheque for the awarded amount cannot be termed to be the compliance of 3rd Proviso to Section 30". Finally appeal has been dismissed. 8. Applying the law as has laid down in the above referred three judgments, there is no scope for maintaining this appeal, which is, accordingly dismissed for want of compliance of 3rd Proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 30 of the Act. 9. The awarded amount deposited be released in favour of the claimant strictly in accordance with the award and the rules. 10. Record of the Authority be sent back along with copy of this order.