The proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, requires the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Commissioner, including interest, at the time of presenting the appeal.

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Gangwal, counsel for the appellant and Mr. H.S. Rajpal, counsel for the respondent.

This appeal is heard finally as a very short point has been involved for adjudication and the respondent is making a prayer for permitting her to withdraw the amount which has been deposited by the appellant in the office of the Tribunal and counsel appearing for parties have consented to the final hearing of this appeal at this stage.

2. The appellant is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the order which has been passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Labour Court, Indore in the matter of Case No. 37/1987 W.C.N.F dated January 24, 1997 by which he directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 35,470/- towards compensation, Rs. 7,000/-as penalty totalling Rs. 52,470/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

3. Few facts need to be stated for the purpose of unfolding the case. It has been alleged by the respondent that respondent was working in the night between March 20, 1987 and March 21, 1987 at 11.00 pm. at thresher machine belonging to the appellant which was threshing out wheat. In the process, her left hand got affected by the thresher machine and it was cut off. The appellant had contended before the Commissioner. Workmen's Compensation that respondent was not his employee, but was wife of his employee Gendalal and she had no business to go near the said threshing machine. It was contended by the appellant that the said work of threshing out the wheat was assigned on contract to the husband respondent Gendalal and one Hindusingh S/o Mangaji. It was contended by the appellant that respondent had come to the said thresher machine at that time for the purpose of providing dinner to her husband Gendalal.

4. Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation dismissed the defence raised by the appellant, and awarded the compensation to the respondent along with interest and penalty is indicated above and, has been assailed by this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. H. S Rajpal raised the preliminary objection to the maintainability of this appeal by pointing out that in view of provisions of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as Act), it was necessary for the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Commissioner to respondent, at the time of presenting the appeal and as it has not been done, the appeal is not maintainable at all. He submitted that on that count the appeal will have to be dismissed. Mr. Gangwal. counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the said proviso is applicable to the cases which are dealt with by provisions of Section 30A and the said proviso is not applicable to the cases which are connected with provisions of Section 30(1)(a). He further argued that in the present appeal the appellant has challenged the rate of interest and the penalty which has been inflicted on the appellant in context with the claim of the respondent and, therefore, there is no disqualification to the maintainability of this appeal as argued by learned counsel Mr. H. S. Rajpal, appearing or the respondent. He submitted that the appellant has deposited the amount of Rs. 35,470/- which has been awarded to the respondent by the Commissioner, as compensation.

6. Section 30(1)(a) deals with the compensation to be awarded to the claimant and Section 30 provides for an appeal challenging such order. Section 30(aa) deals with the awarding of interest or penalty under Section 4A. By the virtue of provisions of Section 30 such persons can prefer an appeal. A proviso has been provided to Section 30 which reads 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."

7. Mr. Gangwal has