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

1985 Supreme(Mad) 401

S.N.SUNDARAM
Nathamuni Gounder And Janardhanan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Represented By Its Secretary, Labour And Industries Department – Respondent


ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners are employers. S. 30 of the Act enables the petitioners to file an appeal against the award. However, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the third proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 30 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to deposit the amount payable under the award before an appeal is entertained. The learned counsel would submit that the said proviso practically denies the right of appeal. I am not able to spell out that the said proviso denies the right of appeal as such. By enjoining the appellant to deposit the amount, the subject matter of the appeal, it cannot be stated that the appeal remedy is taken away. It is an age-old principle of law that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right attaching to any litigation. A right of appeal as such does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly given by statute or by rules having the force of statute. An appeal being a creature of statute, the right of appeal can always be limited by the law which gives that right and the pr

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