The proviso to Section 30 of the Workmens Compensation Act requires the deposit of the compensation amount before filing an appeal, applicable to both employers and insurers, to provide immediate relief to injured workers or their dependents.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has been preferred against the judgment and award dated July 12, 1995 of Workmens compensation Commissioner, muzaffarnagar awarding compensation to respondent No. 1 on account of death of her husband Harbhajan Singh in an accident. The appeal is not accompanied by a certificate of deposit of the compensation amount awarded to the claimant.

( 2 ) SRI Rajeshji Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the proviso to Section 30 of the Workmens compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) only lays down 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 appeal against and, therefore, the requirement of deposit would come into play in an appeal filed by the employer and not where the appeal has been preferred by an Insurance company. Learned counsel has submitted that the bar which operates against the employer to file an appeal without being accompanied by a certificate of deposit cannot come into play in an appeal, which has been preferred by an insurer.

( 3 ) UNDER the scheme of the Act, the only provision under which an appeal may be preferred against the award of the workmens Compensation Commissioner is section 30. There is no other provision in the act for filing an appeal. The Insurance company is permitted to file the appeal only because it is under an obligation to satisfy the award made against the employer and thereby it steps into the shoes of the insured i. e. the employer. The object of proviso to Section 30 is that the claimants may get the compensation amount awarded to them by the workmens Compensation Commissioner forthwith and its payment may not be deferred on account of passing of a stay order in the appeal which may be preferred by the employer. It is a beneficial piece of legislation which has been enacted to provide immediate relief to a workman who has sustained injury in the course of his employment or in the event of his death to his dependents. It is obvious that in the case of injury, the workman concerned or in the case of death, his dependents need immediate financial help. The Legislature, keeping the said object in view, made it mandatory that the amount awarded by the Workmens compensation Commissioner should be deposited before an appeal is preferred. It may be noted that the appeal lies only on a substantial question of law. If the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is accepted, the very object of enacting the proviso to Section 30 would be defeated.

( 4 ) THERE is no specific provision in the Act permitting the Insurance Company to prefer an appeal. It is only an employer who can file an appeal under Section 30 of the Act and insurance Company gets the right to file an appeal only because it steps into the shoes of the insured i. e. employer. It cannot, therefore, have better rights than that of an employer. If the employer is precluded from filing an appeal without filing the certificate of deposit of the amount, there is absolutely no reason why such a condition should not be applicable to an insurance Company which gets a right to file an appeal only on of the fact that it has stepped into the shoes of the employer. The same has been taken by a Division Bench of Andhra pradesh High Court in Gangireddy venkateswara Rao v. New India Assurance company Ltd. 1998-I-LLJ-1011, a Division bench of Kerala High Court in New India assurance Co. v. M. Jayarama Naik 1984-i-LLJ-171 (Ker-DB) and Punjab and Haryana high Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Kartar Singh and another 2001 (90) FLR 580.

( 5 ) WE are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the present appeal which has been filed without the certificate of deposit is not maintainable.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant had made a prayer that in case it