Gujarat High Court
Navinbhai vs Punmaram on 11 October, 2011
Author: G.B.Shah
Bench: G.B.Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/8806/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 8806 of 2011
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 1962 of 2011
=========================================================
NAVINBHAI
DOSHI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
PUNMARAM
LAKHARAM JAT (CHAUDHARY) & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JITENDRA H SINGH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date
: 11/10/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1.0 Perused the application dated 21.09.2011submitted by learned Advocate Mr. J.H.Singh which is against the office objections at Sr No. 26 raised by the office for removal of the same. The objection at Sr. No. 26 of Checklist reads as under:
26.
" Whether the receipt of the deposit in the lower court filed?- No."
2.0 Learned Advocate has drawn attention of this Court of the cause title of the First Appeal and submitted that First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Workman Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act") challenging the penalty imposed on the present appellant- Shri Navinbhai Doshi who is original opponent No.1 in Workmen Compensation ( NF) Case No. 34 of 2006(A). He has then submitted that the awarded amount has already been deposited by the respondent No.2- Insurance Company who is original opponent No. 2. He has drawn my attention of Section 30 of the Act and submitted that awarded amount is required to be deposited more particularly if the order challenged under the provision of Section 30(1)(a) of the Act but if the penalty and interest amount be challenged by the owner under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act then for the amount under challenge, no certificate of depositing the amount is required to be annexed with the First Appeal to be presented before the Registry because in that case, the third proviso laid down in Section 30 (1) of the Act would not be applicable. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in in case of M/s Kap Steel Ltd. versus R.Sasikala 1990 LAB I.C. 1144 wherein in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 reads as under:
"5.
As far as the second question is concerned, the learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the condition precedent prescribed under the third proviso of sub-sec. (1) of Section 30 (1) of the Act applies only to an appeal falling under clause (a) of Section 30(1) of the Act and, therefore, the condition precedent of depositing the amount before preferring an appeal applies only to the amount of compensation awarded and not to an appeal falling under Section 30(1) (aa) of the Act, which provides for an appeal against the order passed imposing interest or penalty under Section 4-A of the Act. He submitted that in the present case, actually the appellant had deposited the amount of compensation even when the proceedings were pending before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, but as the appellant was required to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of accident and it was deposited after about 11 months, interest and penalty had been imposed under Section 4-A of the Act and whatever that may be, as the entire amount of compensation payable had been deposited by the appellant before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, there was no question of compensation before preferring this appeal.
6.0 The learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that as the appeal preferred was only against the interest and penalty imposed under Section 4-A of the Act, the condition of depositing the amount prescribed under the third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act was not attracted as this appeal does not fall under clause (a) of Section 30(1) but falls under clause (aa) of the said section. In the result, we answer the second question as follows:
3.0 Considering the above ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, it appears to me that present appellant has preferred this First Appeal under Section 30(1)(aa) of the Act and so the third provision of Section 30(1) of the Act is not attracted to the same. Hence office is directed to register First Appeal in absence of receipt of deposit in the lower Court filed by the present appellant.
(G.B.SHAH, J.) niru* Top