ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. GAJINDRA PRUSTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under the Letters Patent purport of the word 'lie' appearing in the third proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (in short 'the Act') is the pivotal question for consideration, in addition to other questions which shall be dealt with infra. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurer') calls in question legality of judgment of a learned Single Judge holding that the Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Section 30 of the Act was defective, and consequentially was not maintainable, as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that appellant had deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. That was the interpretation given to the expression 'lie' appearing in third proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 30 of the Act. The quantum awarded by the Commissioner as compensation to Gajendra Prusty (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') was under challenge.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the insurer submitted that a narrow meaning cannot be given to the expression 'lie' and the interpretation put on the said word does not bring out the true import of the expression. It is also submitted that the loss of earning capacity which is the sine qua non for fixation of compensation, has not been assessed as required under the statute and, therefore, the quantum as awarded by the Commissioner is not reasonable.

(3.) SINCE the core question relates to consequence of non -accompaniment of the certificate by the Commissioner to the memorandum of appeal, as required in the provision referred to above, it is necessary to quote the provision. 30. Appeals -(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely: (a) an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half -monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum; (a -a) an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A; (b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment; (c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent; (d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of Sub -section (2) of Section 12; or (e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and; in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in Clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees; Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: Provided further that no appeal by an employer under Clause (e) 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.xx xx xx