IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.708 of 2009 THE ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRIC SUPPLY DIVISION, MUZAFFERPUR EAST, MUZAFFERPUR. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER CUM COMMISSIONER UNDER W.C., LABOUR COURT, MUZAFFERPUR, PATNA-1. 2. MOST ROOPKALA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE SOMESHWAR JHA, R/O VILLAGE-CHAKHASAN BANGRA, P.O.- PURUSTAMPUR, P.S. MUZAFFERPUR SADAR, DISTRICT-MUZAFFERPUR. -RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : Mr. Arun Srivastava 2 22.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The preliminary issue for decision is whether a Letters Patent Appeal will lie against judgment and order passed by learned single Judge in a Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Section 30 of the Act reads 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; 2 (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 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. (2) the period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days, (3) the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section.” 3 The Act does not contain any other provision for further appeal against appellate order of the High Court in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Act. The issue whether an appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent of Patna High Court is maintainable against a judgment of single Judge is no longer res integra in view of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Chhaya Rani Vrs. Dhan Devi @ Dhan Dei , reported in 1998 ACJ (Accident Claim Journal) 441. After considering the provision of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of High Court, Patna, and provision for appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several cases , the earlier Division Bench held that keeping in view the history of legislation and the limited and restricted nature of appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act, the only possible view is that further right of appeal against the judgment of the single Judge has been taken away by necessary implication. The aforesaid Division Bench judgment has also noticed earlier judgment of this court in the case of Gulab Devi Ahir Vrs. Union of India, 1989 ACJ 1072 4 (Patna) and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. Vrs. S.P. Sarup Singh, AIR 1965 S.C. 1442. We find that similar view has been taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench in the case of Dhondubai Murlidhar Reddi Vrs. Proprietor, Jankidas Khandsari Sugar Factory; reported in 1991 ACJ 954. In view of aforesaid settled law, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) AAhmad