Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deputy Manager National Insurance ... vs Smt. Shanni Bee And 3 Ors. on 28 August, 2025
1 MA-784-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
MA No. 784 of 2012
(DEPUTY MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs SMT. SHANNI BEE AND 3 ORS.
AND OTHERS )
Dated : 28-08-2025
Shri Sudhir Dandwate - Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Kuldeep Bhargava - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Insurer against the order dated
27/8/2011 passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain under Section 22 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act.
2. On 31/7/2024 when this case was listed for hearing on admission, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 raised an objection that the present appeal is not maintainable as
the appellant has not deposited the interest amount. Faced with this, learned counsel
for the appellant sought time to verify the aforesaid fact and argue the matter. On
25/9/2024 counsel for the appellant informed the Court that interest has been
deposited and the receipt will be filed. The receipt was brought on record. On the
basis of the documents available on record following dates for the purpose of
deciding the question of maintainability are relevant :-
(i) On 18/4/2012 appeal was filed. Before filing the appeal on 13/3/2012 principal
amount was deposited.
(ii) On 5/2/2020, learned counsel for the respondents raised objection for the first
time that the appeal is not maintainable on account of non-deposit of the interest.
(iii) On 21/7/2021 the interest was deposited.
3 . Counsel for the respondents submits that the interest has been deposited
2 MA-784-2012
subsequent to filing of appeal thus the appeal was not maintainable. He submits that
the requirement of the provisions of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act,
1923 is that no appeal by employer under Clause (a) of sub section (1) shall lie unless
the memorandum of appeal is accompanied a certificate by the Commissioner to the
fact that appellant has deposited with it amount payable under the order appealable
against. Thus he says the requirement of law is that appeal must accompany a
certificate of payment of amount payable. He submits that amount payable is not only
the principal amount awarded by the impugned order but even the interest thereon.
Thus when the appeal was filed it must have accompanied with certificate of full
deposit ie., principal amount as well as the amount of interest as the interest part has
been deposited subsequent to filing of the appeal, thus now the defect is not curable
and appeal is not maintainable.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in reply to objection of the respondents submits
that requirement of 3rd proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 30 is of deposit of the
amount mentioned in Clause (a) of sub - section (1). There is no mention of Clause
(aa) of sub - section (1) in the proviso thus he submits that as per Clause (a) only
principal amount is required to be deposited, interest and penalty are mentioned in
Clause (aa) which is not mentioned in proviso thus there is no default and the appeal
is maintainable. He further submits that in any case the default has now been cured.
Thus even if it is accepted that the interest was also required to be paid then also
appeal is maintainable for the reason that the amount has now been paid in the year
2021 itself.
5. In support of his submission learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s.
Ram Kishore Mishra, 2012 (4) MPLJ 429 and Oriental Insurance Co., Jabalpur V/s.
Siyabai & Ors., 2013 SCC OnLine M.P. 10950. In support of his submission learned
3 MA-784-2012
counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Lala Ram & Ors. MACD, 2015 (1) M.P. 465.
6 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents on
record.
7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that 3rd proviso
to sub - Section (1) of Section 30 refers only to Clause (a) thus only principal amount
is required to be deposited and not the interest part for maintaining the appeal under
Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act. This contention cannot be accepted
in view of the fact that the issue has already been decided by this Court as early as in
the years 1998 in the case of Tulsiram V/s. Daryaobai , 1998 (1) MPLJ 188. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Section 30 viz-a-
viz Section 4-A of the said Act has held that for maintaining appeal under Section 30,
the appellant has to deposit the principal amount coupled with appropriate amount of
interest awarded by the Commissioner. This position of law was repeated by this
Court in the cases of Ramkishore Misra as well as of Siyabai (supra). Thus the
appellant was required to deposit the interest on the amount of compensation awarded
by the Labour Court which though has been deposited but only in 2021 ie., not before
filing of the appeal. As such the effect of the same has to be seen.
8. The third proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Employee's
Compensation Act reads as under :-
"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 fact that the appellant has deposited with him
the amount payable under the order appeal against".
9. The effect of this proviso has to be considered. The Hon'ble Apex Court while
considering a pari materia provision in the case of Commissioner Income- Tax,
Bombay City I, Bombay V/s. Filmistan Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1134 has held meaning of
4 MA-784-2012
the words no appeal shall lie would mean that the appeal not be held to be properly
filed until the tax has been paid ie., if the requisite amount is paid then the appeal
would be maintainable and if there is any question of limitation that has to be
considered under the circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in para
20 as under :-
"(2) Appeals are provided against assessments under Section 30 of the
Act. There is a proviso to S. 30(1) in regard to the payment of taxes in
the following words :-
"Provided that no appeal shall lie against an order under sub-section (1)
of Section 46 unless the tax has been paid."
The controversy between he parties revolves round the words "no
appeal shall lie". The contention which was raised before us was that
these words mean that there is no right of appeal till the tax is paid and
therefore, if the tax has not been paid the memorandum of appeal
cannot be filed and if filed it is merely a waste paper. In our opinion the
meaning of the words "no appeal shall lie" in the proviso is not that no
memorandum of appeal can be presented. All that it means is that the
appeal will not be held to be properly filed under the tax has been paid.
If, for instance, the memorandum of appeal is filed on the 20th day, i.e,
10 days before the period of limitation expires and the tax is paid
within the rest of the 10 days, the appeal will be a proper appeal it will
be within time and no question of limitation will arise but if the tax is
paid after the period of limitation has expired it will be taken to have
been filed on the day when the tax is paid even though the
memorandum of appeal was presented earlier and within the period of
limitation. The question will then have to be decided whether there was
sufficient cause for condonation of delay and that is exactly what the
Tribunal had ordered and that in our opinion is the effect of the proviso
to Section 30(1) read with sub-sec. (2) of S. 30 of the Act. It is
unnecessary therefore to refer to the two cases referred to by the High
Court, ie., Raja of Venkatagiri V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax, 1955-
28 ITR 189: (AIR 1957 Andhra 276) and Kamdar Bros. of Jharia V/s.
Commissioner of Income-tax, 1955-27 ITR 176: (S) AIR 1955 Pat
122)." (Emphasis supplied)
10. On perusal of the provision quoted in para 2 above it will come to the fore that
the language of the said proviso is almost identical of the third proviso of sub-section
(1) of Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act. As such the ratio as laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court will also apply in the present case. In the considered view
of this Court the effect of the word "no appeal shall lie" will only be that appeal will
not be held to be properly filed until the entire amount awarded by the Labour Court
5 MA-784-2012
along with interest is deposited by the appellant. It can only be heard after the amount
is deposited. The defect is curable, as such in view of the fact that the appellant has
now deposited the interest part also, it cannot be dismissed as not maintainable on the
said ground. As such the objection with respect to maintainability of the appeal is
hereby overruled.
11. In view of the fact that the present appeal is pending since 2012, the amount of
interest is deposited in the year of 2021 and the principal amount was deposited prior
to filing appeal the same is accepted as full compliance of the 3rd proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 30 of the Act.
12. List the matter for final hearing in the month of October, 2025.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
SS/-
