IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Another Versus Anchhai & Others (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1141/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : November 12, 2010 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the appellants. BY THE COURT : Instant civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.06.2010 passed by learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Chittorgarh in WC Case No.Fatal/25/2007, whereby, learned Commissioner has allowed total sum of Rs.3,60,454/- as compensation and penalty to the legal heirs of deceased workman. Before entering into merit of the case, it is worthwhile to observe that instant appeal was presented before this Court on 25.08.2010; and, thereafter, a receipt of cheque, bearing No.909497, dated 01.09.2010 issued by the Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Chittorgarh was filed on 09.11.2010, and, according to Section 30, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, there is specific provision that no appeal 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. The relevant provision of Section 30 of the Act of 1923 runs as under : “30. Appeals.-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely :- (a) an order as 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; (aa) 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 dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant; (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 registration of the same subject to conditions: Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the ap[peal, 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 by an employer under clause (a) 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.” Upon perusal of the above provision, it is abundantly clear that memorandum of appeal is required to be accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner, 2 Workman Compensation to the effect that the amount has been deposited with him and, admittedly, in this case, appeal was presented on 25.08.2010 without any certificate and, on 09.11.2010, a receipt of the cheque was filed and not the certificate which is required to be issued by the Commissioner as per proviso to Section 30 of the Act of 1923; meaning thereby, the mandatory provision for filing the certificate has been violated by the appellants, therefore, on this ground, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is also worthwhile to observe here that as per the above provision no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. I have perused the impugned order. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that as per the finding arrived at by learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Chittorgarh, deceased Bagdi Ram was employee of the appellant Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. who died while discharging duty. The claimants proved their case by leading cogent evidence, therefore, in my opinion no error has been committed by learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Chittorgarh. More so, the judgment impugned is based upon due application of mind and passed after taking into consideration entire evidence of the case. In this view of the matter, no substantial question of law emerges for consideration which requires any interference in the order impugned. Hence, this appeal is dismissed on merit also. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. 3 Ojha, a. 4