K.T.Padmanaban vs C.Palani on 19 August, 2015
3. Before going into the main issue on facts the first aspect to be considered in the issue, relating to maintainability of this appeal as raised by the claimant, for want of compliance of Third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, by enclosing along with the Memorandum of Appeal, a certificate issued by the Commissioner for appeal, that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order, on appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant provision of law, which makes it clear that no appeal by an employer against the order awarding lump sum compensation shall lie unless the Memorandum of Appeal is accompanied by the certificate of the Commissioner that the appellant has deposited with him the amount ordered to be payable by him. In this case, admittedly, no such deposit was made and no such certificate was enclosed along with the Memorandum of Appeal. As a matter of fact, the value of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, in the Memorandum of Grounds, is mentioned as incapable of valuation, which is totally incorrect. The value of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the value of the impugned award and the same is mentioned as incapable of valuation, only to escape the liability of complying with the Third proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has, at this juncture, cited the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. R. Mahalingam, reported in 2012 (2) TN MAC 750, wherein the learned Single Judge has, in paragraph 10 has referred to the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement under Third Proviso to Section 30(1) of the Act and has, in paragraph 21, held the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, for such non-compliance to be not maintainable.