LAWS(KER)-2013-3-237

MANAGER, MADUPETTY ESTATE Vs. PACKIALETCHMY

Decided On March 19, 2013
Manager, Madupetty Estate Appellant
V/S
Packialetchmy and Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the expression, "order appealed against" contained in the third proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ('the Act' for short) relate to 'interest or penalty' awarded under Section 4A of the Act If not, is it necessary for appellant to deposit any amount other than what is referred to in Section 30(1)(a) viz., "lump sum" compensation, to entertain the appeal under the said section Can appellant be insisted to deposit the amount ordered as 'interest or penalty' for entertaining an appeal under Section 30(1)(a) or under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act, by virtue of the third proviso to Section 30 of the Act In the absence of depositing any amount awarded as 'interest and penalty' under Section 4A of the Act, is there any bar under the third proviso to Section 30 of the Act, to entertain the appeal filed under Section 30(1)(a) or under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act The above preliminary questions arise for consideration in the appeal filed under Section 30(1)(a) and Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act.

(2.) As per the impugned order, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('the Commissioner' for short) ordered appellant to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,39,130/- with simple interest at 12% with effect from 30/07/2001, the date of filing of this petition and Rs. 1000/- for funeral expense within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default, claimant was allowed to realize 30% of such amount towards penalty. The said order is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) On filing of this appeal, the Registry noted a defect that the amount payable towards 'interest and penalty' is not deposited by appellant, as contemplated under third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. This defect was noted, in the light of the decision another Division Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Biju, 2011 2 ILR(Ker) 111 . Therefore, the appeal came up for hearing on the preliminary question of maintainability.