JUDGMENT S. Awasthy, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act against the order dated 10-8-78, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court) Jabalpur, in W.C. No. 19/77 (Fatal) awarding an amount of Rs. 21,600/- to the dependants of deceased Balkarsingh.
2. It is the case of the respondent No. 1 that Balkarsingh was employed by Baba Gyansingh, N.A. No. 2, as driver on 8-10-76. The said driver Balkarsingh received the injury in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment on 8-10-76, resulting in his death. The applicant and three others are his dependants. The wages of the deceased were Rs. 600/-per month, including allowances
3. The appellant herein, had filed written statement denying the alleged employment of late Balkarsingh and further alleged that the other dependants have not preferred a claim, Hence no award can be passed in the repesentative capacity in favour of Mohindersingh. The liability of the Assurance Company is also disputed.
4. The Commissioner, for Workmen's Compensation (Labour Court), Jabalpur, held that the claim was maintainable and the Assurance Company was liable for the claim. It was also held that the deceased was in the employment of Baba Gyansingh hence the liability.
5. All these findings are challenged in this appeal.
6. The respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that appeal was not tenable, as the amount of compensation was not deposited by the appellant within time, which is mandatory under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The day when the amount was so deposited shall be deemed to be the day of presentation of this appeal before this Court. The appeal it is urged, is hopelessly barred by time.
7. The counsel for the respondents relied on the case of New India Assurance Co Ltd v. Jayarma Naik and Anr. repoited in 1981 (43) Indian Factories and Labour Reports 322 : 1982 ACJ 3. It was held that 'the insurer is only stepping into the shoes of the insured, the employer, and the defence is not qua insurer but in the name of the insured and in his place. An appeal preferred on such grounds, if successful, will jeopardise the employee's right to recover the compensation from the employer also. What the insurer seeks in such an appeal is that the insured may be found to be not liable to pay the compensation, and consequently, the insurer also may be held to be not liable. The primary relief sought for is the first mentioned relief and the other relief is consequent to the grant of that relief. Hence such an appeal is preferred by the insurer for and on behalf of the employer and in his stead though the aim of the insurer is to exonerate his own liability. What the insured cannot do by himself, viz., filing of an appeal without complying with the requirements of the third proviso to Section 30 of the Act 'cannot be done by another on his behalf. So the third proviso to Section 30 of the Act, governs such appeals.' The counsel for the respondents further submitted that the appeal is barred by time, hence be dismissed without going into the merits.
8. The proviso 3 to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation, Act is abundantly clear and so also the ruling that deposit of the amount of compensation, at the time of the presentation of appeal is mandatory. Because time was given by the Court to deposit the amount of compensation, the period of limitation is not extended. The appeal would be deemed to be competent only on that day when the amount of compensation as awarded by the Commissioner is deposited in full in the Court. The proviso 3 of Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has not been complied with.
9. I hold that the appeal is barred by time and the provision under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act has not been complied with.
10. The appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their costs.
Comments