The appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act requires the deposit of principal and interest for maintainability, with this requirement being a curable defect.

The present Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act , 1923 being aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2020 passed in Case No.48/WC/2015/NF by the Commissioner for Workman Compensation, Labour Court, Indore.

2. By the said award, an amount of Rs.29,04,380 was awarded along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and a penalty.

3. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on 29.07.2024 by framing one substantial question of law.

4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for respondent No.1 contending that the appeal is not maintainable in terms of rd the 3 proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 in view of the fact that the appellant has deposited only the principal amount, whereas he was required to deposit the interest part as well.

4.1. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.09.2012 in the case of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE National Insurance Company Limited vs Shri Ramkishore Mishra and Others in M.A. No.695/2011.

5. Faced with this, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, in view of the provisions of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, the appellant was required to deposit only the principal amount of rd compensation. He points out that the 3 proviso states that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate from the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited the amount payable under the order appealed against.

rd He thus submits that the reference in the 3 proviso is to clause (a), whereas the interest is covered under clause (aa). Therefore, the objection raised by respondent No.1 is not tenable.

5.1. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the order dated

14.01.2019 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the case of Jeetu Bhai Motwani vs Lekharam Namdeo in M.A. No.935/2015.

6. On due consideration of both the orders cited by the counsel for the contesting parties, it emerges that in the subsequent order of Jeetu Bhai (Supra), the Hon'ble Single Judge, while referring to the earlier order rd i n National Insurance Company Limited (Supra), observed that the 3 proviso to Section 30 of the Act was not reproduced or considered in its entirety in the said case. In view of the same, the Hon'ble Judge, observed that the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra) was per incuriam.

6.1. There is one more peculiar aspect of the case that the Hon'ble Single Judge, while holding the judgment in National Insurance Company Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE Limited (Supra) to be per incuriam, did not refer to the judgement of a co- ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Tulsiram vs Daryaobai in 1998 (1) MPLJ 188. This is despite that, in the opening lines of the order, the Single Judge had mentioned the said case of Tulsiram (Supra) while recording the contentions of the counsel for the respondent. It thus appears that the said judgment escaped the attention of the Hon'ble Judge at the time of recording findings/conclusions and consequential decision.

6.2. This Court is now faced with a situation where the judgement i n Jeetu Bhai (Supra) holds that the judgement in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) is per incuriam, but the earlier and relevant judgement in Tulsiram (Supra) has neither been considered nor held to be per incuriam.

6.3. In the case of Tulsiram (Supra), a co-ordinate Bench of a Single Judge of thi