“mcw Lmnom APFEAL VO :33 mm A 9PELLANT VERSUS- é RESPQNBENT S g/ WWW 6” Moreno #— APPEAL {INDER SECTIGE} 3a 9F ACT. 1923. ! 3); Narendm Kumar Sm Chandra Kumzu‘ Eain. Rio Indira Market, Statioa Raad, Burg {C.G;). Respondent no a to ara minm' ihmugh their mama E‘remm Ba; Raspomievst § to * a1"? Rm) Mllaw Lahkadl P’o Mmam ‘1, P.S.N amhm, Tahsll 3; DtSti‘ic-t Durg (CG). htendra 3mm" bd) Mah‘aiix“ Uwupatmn Bmlémg Contratm aaed «3 yeah, Rfe Ne’xr S‘Ai§1id Bhaoai S1112}: Swami Sviundn Nagai Tituruh Burw {L gy/ hi (H é. £97 060// MN PENSATEO \ I 1 ‘s' ORkMEV E S ’ 32m. Remix} Bai, WMaw 9f Bhagwat aged 30 years, 3’1 Chaaram Sm Bhagwat, aged about 12 years. 3. Bhanu‘, $/G Bhagwat, aggtir? year's, 4‘ Chuman? SJO Bhagwat, aged '2 yams. §, Ku. Gudiya Dfo Bhagwai. agad 7 yams, mandatory requirement. Again counsei for the .appenant on 22 amoun of compensation has not I: m View of above: no optiz drsmiss the appeai for non- compensati‘on as required under S 3-04—201 (1 een deposited. >n is raft to this Court be? to depositing ectign 80 of the Act. k S$/- , N. K“ Agarwal Judge ea‘ the amouni time was grantee io learned Despite the: the Mt A. No- ‘5? mm m 200 L mm (Wu) WWW ama§w$w$ WWW wmwwmmm § $ww awfmm SE. H0n’é3Ee Shri Justice NK. Aaarwas 2§-®4§-2m@ Shri Rajeav Shrivasiava. counsei aiong with Shr; Maiay €hrivastava, counssl for the appel ant. if appears mai since 2002, the apgaeaiani did not deposit “me amoum of camaensatxon as is; required under Section 30 of ihe Workmen‘s Compensation Ac? (for shor‘i ‘the Act‘) which is