Compliance with mandatory pre-deposit requirements under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act is essential for the maintainability of an appeal, and failure to comply renders the appeal incompetent ab initio.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. As is evident from the order sheet dated 06.05.2023, the appellant had filed I.A. No. 02/2017 seeking exemption from filing the deposit receipt of the compensation amount, as mandated under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘E.C. Act’). The said interlocutory application was duly considered and rejected by this Court on 06.05.2023 on the ground that deposit of the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Labour Court is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal under Section 30 of the E.C. Act.

3. It is pertinent to note that Section 30 of the E.C. Act clearly stipulates that no appeal by an employer shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate of the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against. Compliance with this statutory requirement is mandatory in nature and goes to the very root of the maintainability of the appeal.

4. Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows :-

“30. Appeals.— (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 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 [employee], 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 [ten thousand rupees or such higher amount as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify:]

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.”

5. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that where a statute itself prescribes a pre-deposit as a condition for filing an appeal, compliance with that requirement is a condition precedent to the maintainability of the appeal. In Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 6750-6757 of 2021 (decided on 11.11.2021), the Supreme Court upheld the statutory requirement of pre-deposit under the proviso to Section 43(5) of