JUDGMENT
R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.10.89 of the learned Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Delhi by which he awarded Rs. 72,548.00 plus Rs. 5,000.00 as penalty and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment.
(2) Since the appeal can be disposed off on a preliminary point, therefore, I need not discuss the merits of the appeal as also the point whether delay in filing the appeal should be condoned or not.
(3) The appeal lies to the High Court from the order of the Commissioner under Section 30 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 from an order awarding as compensation a lump sum whether by way of redemption of a half monthly payment or otherwise or disallowing a claim in full or in part for a lump sum. Under sub clause (c) rule (1) of that Section, there has to be an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependant. The third proviso to this Section is as follow : “PROVIDEDfurther 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 effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealled against.”
It is admitted that amount payable under the order has not been deposited and no certificate has been obtained from the Commissioner. However, learned counsel for the appellant says that Section 30(1)(a) of the Act is not applicable in the present case because it is not a case where in respect of a lump sum compensation, question of redemption of half-monthly payment or otherwise is involved. He has further submitted that this sub-section will apply only where the injured person has not died and the compensation is claimed by him in respect of the injuries suffered by him. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any other sub clause under which a claim can be filed by the dependant of a deceased workman. Clause (c) of rule 1 of Section 30 of the Act provides only for distribution of compensation among the dependants of a deceased workman. So more or less the question of distribution comes when some compensation has been awarded and compensation is awardable only under Clause (a) of rule 1 of Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that sub rule (a) does not apply has not impressed me. I am of the view that unless the compensation a warded was deposited and certificate obtained as per the aforesaid proviso, the appeal itself – is not competent.
(4) Therefore, in this particular case when the appeal itself is not competent, I need not go in the question whether delay in filing the appeal should be condoned or not. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.