MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. REAL FAB AUTONAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Letters Patent Appeal is preferred questioning the order of the learned single Judge dated l3-3-1992 in C.M.P.Nos.4553 and 6078 of 1991 making absolute the interim stay granted on 2-4-1991 in C.M.P.No. 4553 of 1991 in C.M.A.No.464 of 1991 with certain modifications by directing the appellant in the C.M.A to deposit 50% of the compensation before the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, within two weeks and making it clear that in the event of appellant failing to deposit the said amount, the interim stay would stand vacated and also that on such deposit being made, the workman, i.e., the second respondent in the C.M.A., would be at liberty to withdraw the same without furmshing security. From this it is obvious that C.M. A.No. 464 of 1991 has been preferred by the employer without complying with the requirements of the third proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('the Act' for short) which requires as follows:

(2.) In view of the above position, when the L.P. A. came up for admission before us on 8-4-1996, we questioned the maintainability of the C.M.A. itself. The learned counsel appearing for the workman, i.e., the appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal, also raised the contention that the C.M.A. was incompetent because the order appealed against did not fall under any of the orders specified in sub-section (1) of Section 30 as it was an order dismissing a petition to" set aside the ex parte order" dated 30-10-1990 awarding compensation of Rs.41,596/- to the appellant in the L.P.A on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident in the course of employment. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel on both sides agreed that the C.M.A itself should be posted for final hearing along with the L.P.A. and consequently we directed the C.M.A to be posted alongwith the L.P.A., and that is how the C.M.A. has come up before us.

(3.) We find that the objection to the maintainability of the C.M.A. is well taken. The C.M.A. is preferred against the order dated 31-1-1991 in W.C.Case.No 102of 1989 which laconically states: