Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Manager Fci & Ors. vs Chanchalo Devi & Anr. on 28 September, 2017
Author: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
CIMA No.190/2017
MP Nos.1/2017, 3/2017
c/w
CIMA No.171/2017
Date of order:-28.09.2017
Manager FCI & ors. Vs. Chanchalo Devi & anr.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. R.S.Sharma, Advocate
For respondent (s) : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate
i. Whether approved for reporting in Press/Media : Yes ii. Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes/No CIMA No.190/2017
1. This Civil Miscellaneous 1st Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the award dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (Assistant Labour Commissioner) Jammu. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jammu by virtue of this order has passed the award of Rs.565462/- as compensation in favor of respondent No.1. In the appeal, it has been prayed that the same be set aside.
2. In terms of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, it is mandatory on behalf of the appellant to deposit the award amount before the Court below. It is apt to reproduce Section 30 of the Act as under:
"30.Appeals-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:-
(a) An order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum;
(aa)An order awarding interest or penalty under Sec 4A) CIMA No.190/2017 Page 1 of 4
(b) An order refusing to allow redemption of a half monthly payment;
(c) An order awarding for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased (employee), or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant;
(d) An order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section 12; or
(e) An order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to condition:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b) unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees;
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties;
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; (2) The period of limitation for an appeal under this section shall be sixty days.
(3) The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), shall be applicable to appeals under this section."
3. From bare perusal of (proviso) this Section, it is evident that no appeal shall be entertained, unless appeal is accompanied with a certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against; or in other word awarded amount has been deposited before court below. This certificate is thus sine quo for entertaining the appeal by this court.
4. In present case appellants were required to deposit the award amount before the Court below (Assistant Labour Commissioner) in terms of Section 30 (1) Proviso (e) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and annexed certificate to this effect along with memo of appeal. There is no certificate of such deposit annexed in memo of appeal; but a photocopy of cheque has been annexed.
CIMA No.190/2017 Page 2 of 45. The Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act by virtue of his letter dated 14.08.2017 addressed to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, has mentioned that the cheque of awarded amount was deposited by the appellants in the bank two times but same has not been cleared. Even this court on 11.8.2017 directed ALC to deposit entire amount in fixed deposit for six month.
6. Today, Manager Accounts, FCI namely, Rupinder Singh, who is present in person, has failed to satisfy the Court with regard to dishonoring of cheque. The certificate of deposit means that amount has actually been deposited before the Assistant Labor Commissioner. Mere deposit of cheque that too which has been dishonored does not amount to a valid deposit. Appellants have not only befooled court below, but have also made wrong statement in appeal filed before this court. In Madras High Court in case titled C.Arumugham @ Raj vs Revathi (C.M.A.No.435 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2012 and 1 and 2 of 2014, decided on 8 October, 2014), it has been held as under:-
11. It is the yet another submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that though a direction was given by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to the appellant to pay the compensation amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident, the appellant has not deposited the interest amount. Without depositing the interest, the appellant has filed the present appeal, which would amount to non-compliance of the requirement of Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, on this ground also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 2012(2) TN MAC 750 - Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. R.Mahalingam, wherein, this Court, by relying upon the judgment reported in 1993 ACJ 736 ( J & K) - J & K SFC v. Ghulam Mohd, has held as follows:-
"21. Appeal in hand is not accompanied by the requisite certificate and therefore, instead of certificate, a letter addressed to the Commissioner enclosing a cheque accompanying the Memorandum of appeal cannot be termed to be the compliance to the requirement of Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act, 1923. The Insurance Company / appellant having not deposited the interest accrued on its failure to deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and as the Memorandum of Appeal is not accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that the Appellant Insurance Company has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against is not sufficient compliance of the requirement of Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act, 1923 and as such I hold that the appeal filed by the insurance company is not maintainable."CIMA No.190/2017 Page 3 of 4
As per Section 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, deposit of award amount with interest within the statutory period is mandatory and only if the appellant satisfies the requirement in filing the appeal, the appeal could be entertained. But, here, the interest was not deposited by the appellant. Now, the appellant herein has taken out an application in M.P.No.1 of 2014 to condone the delay of 919 days in depositing a sum of Rs.1,43,568/- being the interest of the award amount of Rs.7,97,600/- and another application in M.P.No.2 of 2014 to permit him to deposit a sum of Rs.1,43,568/- towards interest on the award amount of Rs.7,97,600/-. I find that absolutely no sufficient cause has been made out in the application to condone the delay. Therefore, I am of the opinion, since the appellant has not complied with the mandatory requirement as per Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, on that ground also, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and further, I find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal to make an interference in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore.
12. In the result, the award of the Commissioner of Workmen Compensation cum Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, dated 18.1.2012 made in W.C.No.13 of 2011 is confirmed and the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all the connected applications are closed.
7. So in view of above even cheque cannot be termed as valid deposit in terms of section 30 of Act. As the award amount has not been deposited, so I am of the view that this appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. The Assistant Labor Commissioner, Jammu may recover the awarded amount from the official account of FCI or by any other mode.
9. CIMA No.171/2017 which has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of the award amount, be detached and same shall be listed separately after two weeks.
(Sanjay Kumar Gupta) Judge Jammu 28.09.2017 Vijay CIMA No.190/2017 Page 4 of 4