FAO No. 1443 of 1991 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1443 of 1991 and Cross Objections No. 50-CII of 1992 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rohtak .. Appellant v. Smt. Suman Lata and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. ... Rajesh Bindal J. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company impugning the award dated 12.10.1990, passed by the Commissioner under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, `the Act') awarding a sum of ` 1,30,146/- as compensation on account of death of Pawan Kumar. At the very out-set, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. He submitted that third proviso to Section 30 of the Act provides 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 the amount payable under the order appealed against. In the present case, there is nothing on record that at the time of filing of appeal, the amount was deposited by the appellant. The appellant, which is an Insurance Company, steps into the shoes of the employer and the FAO No. 1443 of 1991 [2] conditions, as are applicable for an appeal by the employer, are equally applicable in case of appeal by the Insurance Company. In support, reliance was placed upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kartar Singh, 2001(2) PLR 267. As far as cross objections filed by him are concerned, he fairly submitted that he does not press the same. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute the fact that the amount as per the order passed by the Commissioner was not deposited at the time of filing of appeal. He submitted that only a sum of ` 86,764/- was deposited, which was the amount due according to the appellant, and that satisfies the condition laid down in Section 30 of the Act. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Section 30(1) of the Act is reproduced below: “30. Appeals.- (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:- (a) an order 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; FAO No. 1443 of 1991 [3] Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, 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 shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: [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.]” A perusal of the aforesaid section shows that no appeal by an employer 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 total amount of compensation payable as per the order appealed against was ` 1,30,146/-. The issue as to whether the Insurance Company is required to deposit the amount payable in terms of the order passed by the Commissioner before filing appeal in this court was considered by this court in Kartar Singh's case (supra), wherein it was opined as under: “13. It can be found from the above quoted judgments that the different High Courts have taken different views regarding this question. No judgment of Supreme Court or of this court has been cited before me by any of the parties. It is also to be seen that except Section 30 of the Act, there is no other provision for filing an appeal. Insurance Company can file the appeal only because it steps into the shoes of the Insured, i.e., the employer. It cannot, therefore, have better rights than that of employer when there is no statutory provision for the same. FAO No. 1443 of 1991 [4] If the employer is barred from filing an appeal without filing of the certificate of having deposited the amount, there appears to be no reason to say that the bar is not applicable to the Insurance Company. Of course, the words used in the proviso are that the employer is barred from filing the appeal without the certificate. As mentioned above, when there is no special provision regarding filing of the appeal by the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company files an appeal only because it steps into the shoes of the employer, the bar will be applicable to the Insurance Company also.” In the present case, undisputedly the total amount due as per the impugned order was ` 1,30,146/-. The appellant admittedly deposited merely ` 86,764/-. Once there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act, the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the statement of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, the cross-objections are dismissed as not pressed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.4.2011 mk