SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Kar) 278

M.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, M.RAMA JOIS
KAP STEEL LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
R. SASIKALA – Respondent


Advocates:
S.N.MURTHY, U.S.Naik

RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) IN this appeal presented under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act ('the act' for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration:- (1) Whether the period of limitation prescribed for preferring the appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Act should be counted from the date of the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or from the date of Communication if in a given case after pronouncing the order a communication about the passing of the order was also given? (2) Whether depositing of the amount of interest or penalty imposed under section 4-A of the Act in addition to the compensation awarded or otherwise, is a condition precedent for preferring an appeal?

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the two questions, it is necessary to set out the provisions of Section 30 of the Act. " 30 (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 or










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top