Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 500 (JK)

Director General, BSF v. Mohd. Maqbool Gakdho

2016-10-03

ALI MOHD.MAGREY, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Bench made in CIMA No. 26/2014, dated 08.02.2016, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, against the award of the Commissioner under Workman's Compensation Act, dated 03.07.2013, was dismissed. It is seen from the records that an award dated 03.07.2013 came to be passed by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, awarding an amount of Rs. 4,59,360/- which includes the interest amount of Rs. 2,61,360/- in favour of Respondents 1 and 2. 2. Appellants feeling aggrieved of the award dated 03.07.2013 passed by the Commissioner, preferred an appeal against the same which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 08.02.2016 by holding that the appellants have failed to deposit the entire awarded amount before this court, therefore, in terms of proviso to Section 30 of the Workman's Compensation Act, the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the requirement for filing the appeal against the award is to deposit the principal amount only and not the interest amount. The appellants have deposited the principal amount, therefore, the appeal preferred is maintainable. 4. It is apt to reproduce proviso to Section 30 of the 1Workman's Compensation Act, herein: "30. Appeals ................. 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 appeal against." 5. While going through the aforesaid proviso, it is manifestly clear that no appeal by an employer shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Commission to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. Admittedly, the appellants had deposited only the principal amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- and has failed to deposit the entire award amount, therefore, the appeal against the appeal is not maintainable. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge and affirm the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.