{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2009 The Executive Engineer, NMC Division Vaijapur APPLICANTS VERSUS Smt. Nandabai Arun Gaikwad & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. Anand Chawre, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.R.Borulkar, Advocate for respondent No.1 to 6 Mr.Parag Shahane, Advocate for respondent No.7 ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 5 th April 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this civil revision application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 12.08.2008 by which the Registrar (Judicial) has refused to entertain the first appeal proposed to be preferred by the applicant, in absence of certificate as provided under the third proviso of section 30 of the Workman’s Compensation Act. The Registrar (Judicial) refused to entertain the first appeal on the ground that the proposed first appeal is filed challenging the order of compensation passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in Application (WC) 83/2001, which {2} was decided by award dated 22.08.2008 and the same is not accompanying with the certificate as required. 2. During the course of submissions, it is urged on behalf of the applicant that the proposed appellant in the first appeal contended that he was not the employer of the deceased and hence not come under the ambit of third proviso of section 30 and need not require to produce certificate as required under the said provisions, in respect of deposit of award of compensation before the trial court. According to him, he is not covered under the definition of “employer” as defined u/s 2 (e) as well as the “managing agent” as defined in sub section (f) of section 2 of the definition of the employer as well as the managing agent, as defined under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. According to him, it is wrongly concluded by the Registrar (Judicial) as the case of the applicant squarely covered under the definition of section 2 (e) and (f) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and hence liable to be produced the certificate of depositing the amount of award. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 6 supports the order passed by learned Registrar (Judicial). 5. Application for compensation was filed by the heirs of {3} deceased before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Aurangabad. The deceased was allegedly working with respondent No.7, who was working as a sub contractor for present applicant. As per section 2 (e) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if services of a workman are hired, temporarily or let out to another person, the another person comes under the definition of section 2 (e) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The fact that the deceased met with an accident while working with respondent No.7, who was the contractor of present applicant, cannot be disputed. If it is so, the case of the applicant is squarely covered under the definition of “employer” covered under clause (e) of section 2 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. In the premise, the applicant is required to tender the certificate, as per the third proviso to section 30 of the said Act. Considering this legal position, the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial) insisting the appellant to tender the certificate, as required, cannot be faulted with. 6. In the result, the application which is sans merits stands rejected. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/cra158-09