J AND K SFC Vs. GHULAM MOHD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAINTAINABILITY of this appeal is under cloud. Mr. M. P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent, submits that the appeal falls short of a statutory requirement as it is not accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner, certifying that appellants have deposited the amount awarded with him and, as such, the same does not lie in terms of 3rd proviso of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter called 'the Act' ). The relevant provision reads as under :

(2.) THE memo of appeal in the present case, directed against the award dated February 5, 1991, was presented on April 5, 1991. It was admittedly not accompanied by the all important certificates. On the contrary, it was accompanied by a cheque for the awarded amount. On April 17, 1991, this Court directed the amount to be deposited in cash before the DR which appears to have been done on April 26, 1991.

(3.) THE matter, therefore, raises some interesting questions and it falls for determination whether the cheque appended with the memo of appeal could be a valid substitute for the Commissioner's certificate and whether the amount deposited pursuant to Court direction, though subject to just exceptions, can be held a substantial compliance of the requirement, prescribed in proviso 3 of Section 30 of the Act.