The mandatory provisions of Sec. 30(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, require an appellant to obtain a certificate from the Commissioner stating that they have deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against.

1. In this case a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent, Sri Nityanand Singh, that the appeal is not maintainable in view of the failure on the part of the appellants to comply with the mandatory provisions of sec. 30 (1) of the Workmens Compensation Act (Act VIII of 1923).

It was pointed out that the third proviso to that section requires 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 objection taken on behalf of the respondent is that no certificate by the Commissioner has been filed in this case on behalf of the appellants as required by the section.

2. An application has been filed on behalf of the appellants under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, praying that the delay in filing the certificate may e condoned. This application has been made on the 1st of August, 1958, and along with this application a certificate by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, has been produced to the following effect: ---

"Certified that the amount of Rs. 2.100/-(Rupees two thousand and one hundred) only was deposited in the Patna Treasury vide challan No. 5 dated the 29th March, 1955 by the Bihar Journals, Ltd. (Searchlight) on account of workmens compensation payable to Shri Nityanand Singh. "Sd. B.N. Basu,

19-7

Commissioner Workmens Compensation and District Magistrate, Patna."

It is also necessary to state that the memorandum of appeal was filed on the 29th March, 1955, and along with that memorandum of appeal the following challan was filed : --

"Challan of cash paid into the Imperial Bank of India

To be filled In by the remitter.To be filled in by the departmental Officer.

By whom tendered.Name (or designation) and address of the person on whose behalf money is paid.Pull particulars of the remittance and of authority (if any)AmountHead of accountOrder of the Bank

Amrut Narain VermaSearchlight Press Ltd., Patna.Compensation awarded under Workmens Compensation Act in Case No. 11A of 53 to be paid to Nityanand Singh or order from the W. C. Commissioner and District Magistrate, Patna.2100/-W. C. Act.Correct, receive and grant receipt Total.2100.00 Sd. Illeg, 28-7-55.

(In words) Rupees two thousand and one hundred only. Sd. Illegible.

Treasury Officer.

D

Rs, 2100/-

Received payment.

Sd. Illegible.

Agent, Imperial Bank of India.

29. March, 1955".

3. In our opinion the application made for condonation of the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be rejected, as no sufficient ground has been made out on behalf of the appellants for not filing the certificate required by S. 30 of the Act. The reason given for the delay is that an application for certificate was filed on the 29th March, 1955, to the Commissioner, and one Sri Amirchand Lal Verma who was looking after the case "did not inform the petitioner the reason for not obtaining the certificate, rather the petitioner believed that the certificate had been fully filed in court".

In our opinion this is not a sufficient ground or condoning the delay made by the petitioners in filing the appeal. We should also refer "to the fact that this appeal came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on the 11th February, 1958, and even on that day the appellants had not taken steps for procuring the certificate from the Commissioner and no application for condoning the delay was filed before the learned Single Judge. As we have already said, there is no ground for condoning the delay and this application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act must be rejected.

4. We should also add that the certificate filed along with this application by the appellants on the 1st August, 1958, is also not a certificate in accordance with the provisions of Sec.30 (1) of the statute. The third proviso to Sec.30 (1) requires that the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied