Girdhari Sahu Vs Phuleshwari Bai

2 - Hemant S/o Late Tekram Sahu, Aged About 3 Years Minor Through Guardian Smt. Phuleshwari Sahu, R/o Village Hathband, Post Hasda, Thana Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - Manthir Sahu S/o Late Hariram Sahu, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Hathband, Post Hasda, Thana Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - Devabai Sahu W/o Manthir Sahu, Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Hathband, Post Hasda, Thana Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh,

¶14

5 - Ku. Neha Sahu D/o Late Tekram Sahu, Aged About 5 Years Minor Through Guardian Smt. Phuleshwari Sahu, R/o Village Hathband, Post Hasda, Thana Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶15

6 - Shyamlal Sahu Alias Shambhu Sahu S/o Bishram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years R/o Deopuri, Near Primary School, Thana Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶18

For Appellant : Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : None

¶19

Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

27.01.2026

¶22

1. Heard Mr. J. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

¶23

2

¶24

2. As is evident from the order sheet dated 06.05.2023, the appellant had filed I.A. No. 02/2017 seeking exemption from filing the deposit receipt of the compensation amount, as mandated under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘E.C. Act’). The said interlocutory application was duly considered and rejected by this Court on 06.05.2023 on the ground that deposit of the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the E.C. Act.

¶25

3. It is pertinent to note that Section 30 of the E.C. Act clearly stipulates that no appeal by an employer shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against. Compliance with this statutory requirement is mandatory in nature and goes to the very root of the maintainability of the appeal.

¶26

4. Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows :-

¶27

“ 30. Appeals. — (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: �

¶28

(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;

¶29

3

¶30

(aa)an order awarding interest or penalty under section 4A;

¶31

(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;

¶32

(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;

¶33

(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

¶34

(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:

¶35

Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than [ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:]

¶36

Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the

¶37

4

¶38

Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties:

¶39

[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.]

¶40

(2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days

¶41

(3) The provisions of section 5 of [the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963)], shall be applicable to appeals under this section.”

¶42

5. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where a statute itself prescribes a pre-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal, compliance with that requirement is a condition precedent to the maintainability of the appeal. In Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6750-6757 of 2021 (decided on 11.11.2021) , the Supreme Court upheld the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 43(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, emphasising that the statutory mandate of pre-deposit for entertaining an appeal must be complied with and cannot be dispensed with lightly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the right of appeal conferred by statute is subject to the conditions laid down therein and such

¶43

5

¶44

conditions cannot be treated as directory; they form part of the scheme governing the exercise of the right of appeal.

¶45

6. Recently, in the matter of Komal Chourasiya v. Ramkali Ahirwar , in MA No. 5783 of 2024 decided on 13.09.2024 , the Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner certifying deposit of the entire awarded amount, the appeal cannot be entertained. The filing of such certificate is a substantive statutory requirement and not a curable procedural defect.

¶46

7. Applying the statutory provisions of Section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Komal Chourasiya (supra), it is clear that the requirement of deposit of the awarded compensation amount is not a mere procedural formality but a mandatory condition precedent for the maintainability of an appeal. Both authorities emphasize that the statutory right of appeal is subordinate to compliance with the conditions expressly laid down by law.

¶47

8. In the present case, the appellant had filed I.A. No. 02/2017 seeking exemption from filing the deposit receipt, which was expressly rejected by this Court on 06.05.2023 on the ground that deposit of the entire awarded compensation is a condition

¶48

6

¶49

precedent under Section 30 of the E.C. Act. Despite the lapse of considerable time thereafter, the appellant has failed to deposit the awarded amount, and no certificate issued by the Commissioner in respect of such deposit has been placed on record. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also not been able to show any compliance with this statutory requirement, nor is there any material to suggest that the requirement has been waived or otherwise satisfied.

¶50

9. The law is well-settled that where a statute mandates pre-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal, such requirement is jurisdictional in nature, and non-compliance goes to the root of maintainability. The Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) clearly held that the right of appeal is conditional upon compliance with the statutory pre-deposit, and any appeal filed without adherence to such condition is incompetent ab initio. Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Komal Chourasiya (supra) reiterated that the memorandum of appeal must be accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner certifying deposit of the entire awarded amount, and failure to comply renders the appeal not entertainable, as it violates the statutory mandate.

¶51

10. In view of the above, and considering that the appellant has neither deposited the awarded compensation nor produced the requisite certificate, this Court finds that the appeal does not

¶52

7

¶53

satisfy the essential statutory condition for maintainability under Section 30 of the E.C. Act.

¶54

11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable , being incompetent due to non-compliance with the mandatory statutory pre-condition.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶57

Yogesh

Girdhari Sahu v. Phuleshwari Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girdhari Sahu v. Phuleshwari Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Mohammad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prabha Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Marco Vs Mohan Singh Gond @ Golu Gond

Santosh Lohana Vs Ku. Neha Banjare

Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Rakesh Kumar Sahu