FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
****
FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 02.02.2009
****
Mr.Bir Sain and another
. . . . Appellants
VS.
M/s Max Metal Caste, Khandawali Road, Village Kaili, Tehsil
Ballabgarh, District Faridabad through its Proprietor.
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****
Present: Mr.H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for the appellants.
None for the rspondents.
****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL)
This appeal has been filed with an application seeking
exemption to deposit the awarded amount with the learned
Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation act, 1923 (for
short ‘the Act’).
Vide order dated 7.5.2008, this Court had ordered that
deposit of awarded amount is mandatory and no exemption is
permissible. At that stage, learned counsel for the appellant had
sought time to deposit the awarded amount with the Commissioner.
Thus, the case was adjourned to 29.7.2008 to deposit the amount
with interest accrued thereon within six weeks. Thereafter, on
FAO No.1405 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
29.7.2008, the case was adjourned to 18.9.2008 on the written
request.
On 18.9.2008, the case was adjourned to 21.10.2008
with an order that order dated 7.5.2008 has not been complied with
by the appellants.
On 21.10.2008, the case was again adjourned to
17.11.2008 on the written request. On 17.11.2008, an
adjournment was granted to deposit the awarded amount within
four weeks and the appeal was posted for motion hearing for
23.12.2008.
On 23.12.2008, one more adjournment was sought
which was granted subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs to be
deposited with the High Court Advocates’ Welfare Fund and it was
further ordered that the amount awarded shall be deposited by the
said date.
Even today, learned counsel for the appellant has made
a statement that neither the amount has been deposited as directed
by this Court vide order dated 7.5.2008 nor the costs which has
been imposed on 23.12.2008.
Since the deposit of the awarded amount is already held
to be mandatory vide order dated 7.5.2008, the present appeal
cannot proceed further. Therefore, the present appeal is dismissed
as not maintainable for want of deposit of amount as provided
under Section 30(a) of the Act.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
February 2, 2009 JUDGE
vivek
