THATTUPARAMBATH GOVINDAN ASARI Vs. THARAMMAL SURESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (since rechristened "the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923"), for short, the "Act", comes up for consideration for admission.

(2.) PERUSING the file, we notice the following facts:

(3.) THE third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act provides 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. THE phrase "no appeal.....shall lie" explicitly provides an inhibition to the institution of the appeal. If a memorandum of appeal to which Section 30(1)(a) of the Act applies is presented without it being accompanied by the certificate by the Commissioner as to deposit, such presentation of the memorandum of appeal does not amount to institution of the appeal because such an appeal does not lie. A memorandum of appeal presented without producing the Commissioner's certificate in terms of the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act would remain as not maintainable. THE memorandum of appeal so presented can only be treated as not properly filed. Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act provides that the period of limitation for an appeal under that section shall be sixty days. This prescription as to the period of limitation read in conjunction with the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 would show that a period of limitation is fixed in filing the appeal accompanied by the Commissioner's certificate as to payment. THE date of institution of the appeal, for all intents and purposes, in terms of Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, is the date on which the appeal memorandum and the certificate of deposit are, together, available before the Appellate Court, namely, the High Court. Unless the certificate as to remittance of the amount before the Commissioner is presented within the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, the appeal would be barred by limitation. An appeal presented without producing the Commissioner's certificate in accordance with the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act, though presented, would remain as incompetent, and with the efflux of period of limitation prescribed for the appeal, would turn out to be not maintainable making it liable to be rejected on ground that it is barred by limitation. THEn, the question that would arise for decision is as to whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay. This is the well settled position in law. For support, see I.T. Commr. v. Filmistan Ltd.1. If no application for condonation of delay, showing sufficient cause therefor is filed, the appeal has to meet the face of rejection. Obviously, such rejection can be made only by a judicial order and not by the Registry.