( 1 ) LETTERS Patent Appeal Nos. 184 of 1995 and 58 of 1996 have been preferred by the applicants for workmen compensation questioning the stay of execution of the orders passed in their favour in W-C. Nos. 64 and 47 of 1994 both dated 6-4-1995 by the Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur Region, Guntur, pending CM A Nos. 1563 and 1564 of 1995 preferred by the insurer, which is the 1st Respondent in these Letters Patent Appeals.

( 2 ) WHEN these LPAs. came up before us for admission, the learned Counsel for the appellants in the LPAs. , i. e. , applicants, stated that the CMAs. were preferred without depositing the compensation amount and consequently without a certificate by the Commissioner as required under the 3rd proviso to Section 30 (i) of the Workmen s Compensation Act, 1923 ( the Act ) for short) and, therefore, the appeals themselves were not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that several High Courts have taken the view that no appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Act can be validly preferred by the insurer without depositing the compensation amount and filing a certificate of the Commissioner to that effect along with the memorandum of appeal. We, therefore, directed the CMAs. to be posted along with LPAs. for final disposal as the learned Counsel on both sides agreed for the final disposal of the CMAs. themselves as the question raised is a pure question of law. That is how these LPAs. and CMAs. are being disposed of together.

( 3 ) THE 3rd proviso to Section 30 (1) of the Act is in emphatic language beginning with a negative as follows :- "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. "the question that arises, therefore, is whether the present CMAS. , would lie when they were not accompanied by a certificate stipulated under the 3rd proviso even though they are preferred by the Insurance Company and not by the employer.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the Insurance Company i. e. , the appellant in the CMAs,, and 1st Respondent in the LPAs. , contends that the 3rd proviso is attracted only when an employee (sic employer) prefers an appeal and not the insurer. It is not in dispute that in the present appeals the quantum of compensation is questioned and, therefore, it is under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act.

( 5 ) IN Mahendra Kumar v. Real Fab, Autonngar, 1996 (2) ALD 475 we have held that "the requirement that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by a certificate specified therein is a mandatory requirement and, in view of the emphatic negative language of the proviso, an appeal by an employer under the said Clause (a) by presenting a memorandum of appeal unaccompanied by such a certificate will be incompetent. " In that view of the matter, we have held that the CMA preferred by the employer under Clause (a) was incompetent. In that case, that was brought to our notice in a Letters Patent Appeal questioning the order of a learned single Judge making absolute the interim stay pending that CMA. In view of the objection raised as regards the maintainability of that CMA, the learned Counsel on both sides agreed that the CMA itself should be posted for final hearing along with the LPA as in the present cases. We may also note that in Gokak Mills v. Commissioner for Workmen s Compensation, 1994 ACT 1099, a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, while holding so, observed as follows :- "so far as the present provision is concerned, it has to be kept in view that the Workmen s Compensation Act is a beneficial legislation. The dependants of the workman who suf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document