1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, by the management of SCM Creations (employer of the deceased A.Rajasekaran) against the order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore, dated 03.03.2012 made in W.C.No.67 of 2010.

2. Regarding the death of A.Rajasekaran, his parents, who are the respondents herein, made a claim before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, against the employer, namely, the appellant herein and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Coimbatore awarded a sum of Rs.3,96,480/-as compensation and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses (total compensation awarded is Rs.4,01,480/-) by the impugned order dated 03.03.2012. The award also directed payment of interest on the above said amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days from the date of occurrence. However, the Commissioner has not chosen to issue any direction regarding the payment of costs. The above said award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Deputy Commissioner of Labour), Coimbatore in W.C.No.67 of 2010 is challenged by the employer, namely, the appellant herein, on various grounds set out in the memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

3. Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the orders of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, either allowing the claim for compensation in a lump sum or disallowing the claim in full or in part. However, the right of appeal is circumscribed by a condition provided in the first proviso to Section 30(1) that no such appeal shall lie against any order of the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. A further condition has been imposed in the third proviso to the effect that no appeal by the employer 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.

4. In this case, the second condition has been sought to be complied with by the production of certificate dated 03.08.2012 issued by the Commissioner. Of course, the certificate simply states that a particular amount (Rs.4,99,112/-) was deposited by the management to the credit of W.C.No.67 of 2010. There is no clear recital that the amount as per the order of the Commissioner has been deposited. In the absence of prescription of specific form in which the certificate has to be issued, such a receipt evidencing deposit of the amount shall be substantial compliance of the requirement of the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. It was held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in'EMM Tex Synthetics ..vs.. Om Prakash and another' reported in (2008) 14 SCC 765. The following are the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court:-

"4.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the relevant provisions made under Section 30 of the Act and other materials on record. After a careful examination, we are of the view that in the absence of any specified form of Certificate indicated in the Act or the Rules, it cannot be said that the Certificate produced by the appellant was not in compliance with Section 30 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had deposited the awarded amount by way of a Demand Draft duly received by the office of the Commissioner. The Demand Draft was deposited along with a covering letter and the receipt was given on its copy. The High Court had refused to accept it as a Certificate under the Act and therefore, dismissed the appeal.

5. In our view, in the absence of any specified form of Certificate, a proof of deposit of compensation would be a substantial compliance of Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be thrown out on such a technical g