Dismissed

Raj Pal and Others v. Kanta Devi and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2009FAO/4196/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant filed an appeal against an order awarding compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, requiring a mandatory deposit. Despite multiple extensions, the appellant failed to deposit the statutory interest amount and could not produce the requisite certificate from the Commissioner, rendering the appeal unentertanible.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

Raj Pal and Others Vs Kanta Devi and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CASE NO.: F.A.O. 4196 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : July 3,2009

Raj Pal and others

.......Appellants

versus

Kanta Devi and others

¶7

......Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶9

PRESENT: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate for the appellants.

¶10

Mr. B.B. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶11

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

¶12

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 10-07-2007 passed by the Commissioner, Karnal under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, vide which the claim of the respondents and applicants before the Commissioner was allowed and the present appellants were directed to pay the compensation along with interest. Along with this appeal, an application for seeking exemption from depositing the statutory amount for filing the appeal was also filed. Vide order dated 05-03-2008, this Court dismissed the application with the following directions :-

¶13

“ No such exemption is permissible. However,in the interest of justice, the applicants are allowed four weeks time to deposit the statutory amount, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed.”

¶14

Although the principal amount of Rs.2,02,683/- was deposited

¶15

F.A.O. 4196 of 2007

¶16

-2-

¶17

before the Commissioner. The interest was not deposited. Vide order dated 08-04-2008, this Court granted time to enable the appellants to deposit the interest. The amount was still not deposited and the following orders were passed on 21-10-2008 :-

¶18

“ Learned counsel for the appellants assures the Court that the appellants shall deposit the interest amount within six weeks from today. Allowed to do so.

¶19

Adjourned to 21-01-2009.

¶20

In the meantime, the amount of compensation which has already been deposited by the appellants shall be disbursed to the claimants-respondents on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of learned Commissioner.”

¶21

Thereafter, last another opportunity was granted vide order dated 02-04-2009 to comply with the order dated 21-10-2008 and deposit the statutory amount of interest.

¶22

Today, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants are unable to deposit the said amount. As per Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the appeal can be entertained, only if the 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. No such certificate has been produced and as per the submission of learned counsel for the appellants, the appellants are not in a position to produce the same. The proviso to Section 30 reads as follows :-

¶23

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

¶24

(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half-

¶25

F.A.O. 4196 of 2007

¶26

-3-

¶27

monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;

¶28

XXX XXX XXX XXX 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.”

¶29

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed for non-compliance of the Proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

¶30

(NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE July 3, 2009 gurpreet

¶31

Whether to be referred to the Reporter : Yes / No

Raj Pal and Others v. Kanta Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Pal and Others v. Kanta Devi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sanjida and Ors.

(O&M)Pritam Singh and Ors. Vs U.T. Chandigarh

Mohan Lal Vs Nagar Panchayat Shahkot

Ajit Singh Vs Vijay Kumar

Gurjeet Sidhu Vs General Public and Ors.

(O&M) M/S Gawritex Industries Ltd. Vs Gurdial Singh and Ors.