FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2009 **** Mr.Bir Sain and another . . . . Appellants VS. M/s Max Metal Caste, Khandawali Road, Village Kaili, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad through its Proprietor. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the appellants. None for the rspondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This appeal has been filed with an application seeking exemption to deposit the awarded amount with the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’). Vide order dated 7.5.2008, this Court had ordered that deposit of awarded amount is mandatory and no exemption is permissible. At that stage, learned counsel for the appellant had sought time to deposit the awarded amount with the Commissioner. Thus, the case was adjourned to 29.7.2008 to deposit the amount with interest accrued thereon within six weeks. Thereafter, on FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - 29.7.2008, the case was adjourned to 18.9.2008 on the written request. On 18.9.2008, the case was adjourned to 21.10.2008 with an order that order dated 7.5.2008 has not been complied with by the appellants. On 21.10.2008, the case was again adjourned to 17.11.2008 on the written request. On 17.11.2008, an adjournment was granted to deposit the awarded amount within four weeks and the appeal was posted for motion hearing for 23.12.2008. On 23.12.2008, one more adjournment was sought which was granted subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be deposited with the High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund and it was further ordered that the amount awarded shall be deposited by the said date. Even today, learned counsel for the appellant has made a statement that neither the amount has been deposited as directed by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2008 nor the costs which has been imposed on 23.12.2008. Since the deposit of the awarded amount is already held to be mandatory vide order dated 7.5.2008, the present appeal cannot proceed further. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable for want of deposit of amount as provided under Section 30(a) of the Act. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) February 2, 2009 JUDGE vivek