“11. Section 7(O) of the Act, 1952 is a different provision, which provides that if the appeal is preferred against the order passed under Section 7(A), then the Tribunal shall not entertain the appeal unless the employer has deposited 75% of the amount due. That is a precondition for entertaining the appeal, whereas in the present matter no such condition was imposed by impugned order passed by CGIT and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner are misconceived and not acceptable. Section 7(O) of the Act, 1952 puts an embargo for entertainment of the appeal by the Tribunal and requires deposition of 75% as pre-condition, if the appeal is preferred against the order passed under Section 7(A) of the Act, 1952. However, in the present matter, the Tribunal has passed the order as a condition for staying the order of recovery and therefore, the same cannot be assailed on the ground that under Section 7(O) of the Act, 1952 no condition can be imposed in respect of the order under challenge was passed in Section 14(B) of the Act, 1952. The judgment passed by the Madras High Court is not helpful to the petitioner and the judgment delivered by Delhi High Court is directly applicable to the present case. However, Apex Court in the matter of Shiv Herbal Res. Laboratory (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in the matter of
