Emm Tex Synthetics vs Om Parkash & Anr
- SCC(2008) 14 SCC 765
- AIRAIR 2008 SC 1845
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 requires that an appeal be accompanied by a Certificate from the Commissioner showing deposit of the awarded amount, and no specified form for such Certificate is prescribed in the Act or Rules, proof of actual deposit of the compensation by the appellant (such as a Demand Draft with receipt) constitutes substantial compliance with the statutory requirement and cannot be rejected on technical grounds of form.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. In spite of due service on the respondents, no one has entered appearance. At the time of hearing of this appeal also, no one has appeared before us to contest the appeal.
3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 5th of December, 2006 passed by a learned Judge (Chief Justice) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Simla in CMP (M) No. 821 of 2006, by which the High Court had dismissed the appeal on a technical ground that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 30 (1)(a) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the Act) as the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a Certificate issued by the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, to show that the appellant had deposited with him the amount payable under the order which was appealed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined the relevant provisions made under Section 30 of the Act and other materials on record. After a careful examination, we are of the view that in the absence of any specified form of Certificate indicated in the Act or the Rules, it cannot be said that the Certificate produced by the appellant was not in compliance with Section 30 of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had deposited the awarded amount by way of a Demand Draft duly received by the office of the Commissioner. The Demand Draft was deposited along with a covering letter and the receipt was given on its copy. The High Court had refused to accept it as a Certificate under the Act and therefore, dismissed the appeal.
5. In our view, in the absence of any specified form of Certificate, a proof of deposit of compensation would be a substantial compliance of Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, the appellant could not be thrown out on such a technical ground.
6. That being the position, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and request the High Court to decide the appeal filed under Section 30 of the Act in accordance with law and after giving hearing to the parties, dispose of the same after passing a reasoned order within six months from the date of supply of a copy of this order.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free