(1.) This appeal has been placed under the heading 'for orders' with the notes of the Stamp Reporter along with the order of the learned Registrar General dated 26.6.2000.
(2.) The appellant has filed the instant appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Act') being aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.99 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner- cum-Commissioner under the Act. A court fee stamp of Rs. 15 was affixed on the memorandum of appeal but the Stamp Reporter raised an objection by pointing out that the appellant is required to pay additional court fee of Rs. 235. The matter was agitated before the learned Registrar General on 7.12.99 and the Stamp Reporter was directed to report again in view of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant on the basis of a decision of this court. After making further report, the matter was again placed before the Lawazima Board on 26.6.2000 and the learned Registrar General endorsed the notes of the Stamp Reporter requiring the appellant to pay additional court fee of Rs. 235.
(3.) Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, relying on a decision of this court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Renu Devi, 1999 (2) PUR 640, has contended that when an aggrieved claimant moves this court in appeal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act he is required to pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 15 and, as such, in the instant appeal when the aggrieved claimant, who got an adverse order from the authority under the Compensation Act challenges the said order before this court in appeal he cannot be asked to deposit the court fee stamp of more than Rs. 15. Elaborating, Mr. Pandey submits that the Stamp Reporter has misinterpreted the word 'award' mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act and the word 'order' mentioned in the Compensation Act and, as such, has given a note that the appeal filed under section 30 of the Compensation Act is against the impugned order and not against an award.