JAYANTI SHIPPING CO LTD , Vs. BERNADITA PEREIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the employer under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order dated 13-10-1971 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Goa, Daman and Diu awarding a sum of Rs. 9,000/- as compensation to the respondent who is the widow of the deceased workman. A preliminary objection about limitation was raised by the respondent and it may be disposed of first.

(2.) Under Section 30 (1), proviso 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act no appeal by an employer 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 the order appealed against. The period of limitation for an appeal vide Section 30 (2) is 60 days. It is not in dispute that the memorandum of appeal was filed on 18-12-1971 without the certificate contemplated under the third proviso of Section 30 (1) of the Act. This certificate was filed much later that is on 10th January, 1972 though the amount was deposited on 27-12-1971. In other words the memorandum of appeal which was not accompanied by 'the requisite certificate was not valid and it could be treated as valid only when the certificate was filed later. By that time the period of limitation of 60 days had expired, and the appeal was barred by limitation (Bhurangya Coal Co. V/s. Sahebjan, 1956 AIR(Pat) 299 .

(3.) The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay stating therein that the certificate was not issued to the appellant earlier even though the amount was paid by cheque dated 8-12-1971 because there was no Labour Commissioner functioning effectively during that period. This application is not supported by an affidavit nor any other evidence has been produced to support this allegation. If a particular office was vacant, the fact could be easily proved by the production of the official Gazette or other official record. In the absence of any material to support the allegation in the application, the delay cannot be condoned. The impugned order was passed on 13-10-1971 and there was no explanation as to why steps were not taken to obtain the necessary certificate within the period of limitation for appeal: There is no sufficient cause which may entitle the appellant for condonation of the delay. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation.