Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Madhya Pradesh Flying Club Ltd. vs Pawandeep Singh Pabla on 8 September, 2025
1 MA-2604-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MA No. 2604 of 2020
(M/S MADHYA PRADESH FLYING CLUB LTD. Vs PAWANDEEP SINGH PABLA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 08-09-2025
Mr.Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms.Monisha Patidar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.Abhishek Gilke, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr.Makbool Ahmad Mansoori, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
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 the 3rd 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 PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23 2 MA-2604-2020 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 compensation. He points out that the 3rd 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.
He thus submits that the reference in the 3rd 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 i n National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) , observed that the 3 rd 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 PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23 3 MA-2604-2020 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 this Court, after considering the rival contentions, reproduced the 3 rd proviso to Section 30 in para 6 of the order. The Court held that the appellant is obliged to deposit the entire amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner. It was further held that the plain meaning of the 3 rd proviso to Section 30 indicates that the amount to be deposited by the appellant must also include the amount of interest awarded by the Commissioner and it becomes the duty of the appellant to calculate and deposit the said amount.
6.4. In paras 6 and 7 of the said judgement the co-ordinate Bench held as under:
"6. Section 30(1)(a) deals with the compensation to be awarded to the claimant and section 30 provides for an appeal challenging such orders. Section 30(aa) deals with the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23 4 MA-2604-2020 awarding of interest or penalty under section 4-A. 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 argued that this proviso has no application to the cases which are connected to provisions of section 30(aa). He further argued that the necessary amount has been deposited by the appellant and Xerox copy of the receipt in that context has been annexed to the appeal memo. I do not uphold his submissions. If the appellant wants to make him entitled to prefer an appeal, he is obliged to deposit the entire amount of compensation which has been awarded to the claimant and that has to be deposited with the Commissioner who is awarding such compensation. The plain meaning of proviso to section 30, as mentioned above provides that the 'the amount which has to be deposited by the appellant with the Commissioner, should be also coupled with appropriate amount of interest awarded by the Commissioner on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant'. Therefore, it becomes the duty of such an appellant to calculate the said amount of interest if the amount of compensation is separately indicated by the appellant in the appeal. If such an amount is not separately calculated, then the appellant will have to seek necessary directions from the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, who has passed the order and that too immediately after the award has been passed. If he fails to do so, he can seek such appropriate order from the High Court at the time of presentation of the appeal memo, if such application is annexed, the High Court would be in position to decide whether the appeal should be accepted for hearing on admission. If such appellant fails to take such steps, he is inviting the effect of a bar which has been indicated by proviso to section 30 as mentioned above." (Emphasis supplied)
7. It is thus clear that this Court, in the case of Tulsiram (Supra) , clearly held that an appellant filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act is required to deposit the amount of compensation, inclusive of both the principal and the interest thereon. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23 5 MA-2604-2020 consideration of the Court was to the words "amount payable".
8. In the opinion of this Court the 'amount payable' would include the amount of interest also. In fact, the third proviso to section 30(1) was inserted w.e.f. 01.01.1934 while clause (aa) was inserted w.e.f. 01.06.1959, it appears that while inserting the said clause the requirement of amendment in third proviso escaped attention of the legislature, however the intention was to get the entire amount payable deposited for maintaining appeal, and certainly the 'amount payable' would include the interest also.
9. In view of the above legal position, although Jeetu Bhai (Supra) held the judgement in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) to be per incuriam, the decision in Tulsiram (Supra) continues to hold the field. In Tulsiram , the 3 rd proviso to Section 30 was reproduced in its entirety, its legal effect was duly considered and specific reference was also made to Section 30 (1) (aa).
10. Furthermore, in the case of Oriental Insurance Company, Jabalpur vs Siyabai and Others in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10950 the same legal position was reaffirmed.
11. In this view of the matter, this Court is bound by the earlier pronouncement in Tulsiram (Supra) and Siyabai (Supra), notwithstanding the fact that the decision in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra) has been held to be per incuriam by Jeetu Bhai (Supra) .
12. As such, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the appellant is required to deposit not only the principal amount but also the interest thereon, as applied by the learned Labour Court. In absence of the deposit of Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23 6 MA-2604-2020 interest, the appeal is not maintainable.
13. However, this Court, while considering this issue in the case of Deputy Manager National Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Shanni Bee and Others in M.A. No.784/2012 has held that this defect is curable.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I, Bombay vs. Filmistan Ltd. in AIR 1961 SC 1134 , while considering a pari materia provision of the Income Tax Act held that the defect is curable however the appellant has to explain delay if the defect was cured beyond the period of limitation. While relying on the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court this Court held that non-deposit of the entire amount payable is a curable defect.
15. In view of the fact that the defect is curable, this court is inclined to grant time to the appellant to cure the defect and in the facts of the present case, the appellant has to explain the delay if he is willing to deposit the amount of interest. Accordingly, time is granted to the appellant to fully comply with the 3rd proviso of Section 30, i.e., to deposit the interest on the principal amount of compensation.
16. In view of the above analysis, seven days' time is granted to the appellant for doing the needful.
List the matter in the next week.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI) JUDGE Anushree Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANUSHREE PANDEY Signing time: 11-09-2025 17:54:23