Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Officers Incharge v. Mata Badal - FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 614 of 1983 [2007] RD-AH 16494 (9 October 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A Chaukidar of Military Dairy Form, Allahabad suffered injuries during the course of employment. Therefore, he preferred a claim petition under the Workmen Compensation Act. The claim has been partly allowed vide impugned order dated 28.2.1983 by the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act and he has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,144/- with 6% interest per annum. This award has been challenged by the appellants by means of this First Appeal From Order.

At the outset it may be pointed that this First Appeal From Order which has been preferred under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) C.P.C., against the award of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act is not maintainable. The correct provision of law is Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the appeal is under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act. For filing an appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen Compensation Act, the employer has to enclose the certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the employer has deposited the amount of compensation awarded. No such certificate of the Commissioner certifying the deposit of the compensation awarded has been enclosed with the memo of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is not competent in view of Section 30 (1) proviso 3. The appeal is of the year 1983 and till date the certificate of deposit has not been filed. It is not desirable to grant any further time to the appellant to file the said certificate. Moreover, the appeal is also beyond time.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable for want of certificate of deposit.

Dt. 9.10.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.