S. B. MAJMUDAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals are filed against the order of the learned single Judge disposing of a batch of writ petitions which challenged 3rd proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act' ). Section 30 of the act provides:"that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and,. . . . . . . . . . is not less than three hundred rupees: Provided further that. . . . . . . . . . to by parties:"the impugned third proviso reads thus:"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 ) IT is submitted that the requirement of depositing the amount payable under the order appealed against even at the stage of filing appeal itself results practically in whittling-down the right of appeal and is therefore arbitrary. It is not possible to agree with this contention. The learned single Judge rightly repelled that contention following a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mandal Panchayat, Gokarna v Smt. Seetabai Rama Kale and Others. In that case, the Division bench consisting of K. A. Swami, the then Actg. Chief Justice and Sadashiva, J. considered a pari materia proviso, which was second proviso to Section 7 (7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which had laid down that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equivalent to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4) or deposits with the appellate authority such amount. The learned single judge has held that the object of second proviso to Section 7 (7) is to discourage filing of the appeals and even if the appeals are filed, the person who is entitled to the payment of gratuity should not be deprived of the benefit of it during the pendency of the appeals. It was found that there is nothing to show that the proviso become invalid, as only it has provided for pre-deposit of gratuity amount. 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 dependents of the workman who suffers fatal injury or the workman who gets a grave physical injury in the course of employment, are entitled to go to the Commissioner of workmen's Compensation for claiming adequate and proper amount of compensation as laid down by the Schedule to the Act. Under these circumstances, once the Commissioner adjudicates and awards compensation paper of the employer, if the latter's right to appeal is made subject to the fetter of depositing of the amount, it cannot be said that the right of appeal has become illusory or arbitrary. It is now well-settled that the appeal is the creation of statute and it is open to the Legislators to give a fettered right of appeal or unfettered right of appeal as the legislative policy requires in the given set of circumstances for catering to which the statute is enacted. In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of anant Mills Co. Ltd. v State of Gujarat and Others,in paragraph 40 of the report, the Supreme Court has observed that provision of pre-deposit cannot be treated as nullifying the right of appeal, specially keeping in view the fact that the discretion is vested in the Appellate Judge to dispense with the compliance of the above requirement. Consequently, it cannot be said that the impugned notices are arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the Constitution, as submitted.

( 3 ) IT was next contended that the proviso nowhere provides that withdrawal of the amount in deposit should be permitted. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document