The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurer filing an appeal against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act has to fulfill the pre-condition of depositing the amount as mentioned in the third proviso to Section 30 of the Act.

S.S.Sudhalkar, J.

1. The common question Of law in these cases is "whether the appeal by the Insurance Company under Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act is sustainable without depositing of the awarded amount ?"

2. Counsel for the parties have been heard on this preliminary point.

3. Section 30 of the Act provides for appeal to the High Court from the orders of the Commissioner. However, by its third proviso, it bars the appeal without a certificate of the Commissioner to the effect that the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by certificate that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against. The relevant provision can be quoted as under :-

"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."

4 The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that they are the insurers and not the employers and therefore, the bar which operates against the employer to file an appeal without being accompanied by the certificate, does not apply to them.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has cited the case of S.D. Sharma v, Ramesh Mhakud and another, reported as 1993(1) A.C.J, 3SS. In the said Judgment, the learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court held that the appeal is maintainable if filed by the Insurance Company without making the deposit of the amount payable under the order appealed against and the reason, according to the learned Single Judge,, is that the Insurance Company cannot come within the category of persons who are specifically required to satisfy the pre-condition. He has also cited the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lalita Bai and others, reported as 1998(1) A.C.J. 119. The learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying on the earlier judgments of the Division Bench, held that the restriction contained in the proviso to Section 30 of the Act for depositing the amount is expressly limited to an appeal filed by the employer and therefore, is not applicable to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has also cited the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vasantha Pitambar and another reported as 1998(1) ACJ 179. In that case, the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court has observed that when the said appeal was filed, the Division Bench of the Court admitted and stayed the enforcement of the award. This was because the appellant had stated in the appeal memo specifically that no certificate as contemplated by the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act was produced as the appeal was not filed by the employer. Learned single judge further went to observe that on reading of Section 30(1) of the Act it is clear that only when the employer files an appeal, the requirement of the Section has to be followed. It has followed the Orissa High Courts view in S.D. Sharma case (supra). It has been further observed that once the appeal is admitted by the Division Bench of the court, it was not open to contend that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for the non-compliance of Section 30(1) of the Act. The learned Judge also referred to the case decided by Madhya Pradesh in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Saifuddin reported in 1992 ACJ 736 (MP) in which it has been held that the Insurance Company is not an employer and the condition of depositing the amount before filing the appeal does not apply.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied on the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Manorama Sahu and another reported as 1993 ACJ 930 in which learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court has held that the Insurance Company is not liable to deposit the amount as pre-condition before filing the appeal.

8. A Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Koll Bewa and