' Above appeal is directed against the order dated 10-7-1988 passed by the Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad.
2. The respondent had filed an application under section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act before the learned Lower Court claiming therein the gratuity, encashment of leave, costs of three Summer Uniforms with Tailoring charges and pension.
3. The appellants denied the claim of respondent and the trial Court framed four issues. After the parties led evidence the trial Court awarded claims of the respondent, the total amount of which is Rs,25,681 by the impugned order which has given rise to above appeal.
4. I have heard the Advocates of parties and perused the record.
5. At the very outset the learned Advocate for respondent raised a legal objection to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not filed with a certificate of Authority to the effect that the appellant had deposited the amount payable under direction, appealed against, hence appeal is not maintainable under section 17(1)(A) of the Payment of Wages Act. In this respect he not only referred section 17 of the Payment of Wages but also the authority reported in 1983 PLC at page 1235. This authority is given by D.B. Of our own High Court in which it has been held that the deposit of compensation within 30 days of order is a condition precedent for filing appeal and noncompliance of it is fatal.
6. The perusal of section 17(i)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act also clearly shows that the amount has to be paid within 30 days of the order. In this case it will be seen that the direction was given by the Authority for deposit of amount within 30 days as per impugned order dated 10-7-1988 but the said amount was sent to the Authority under Cheque No, 06216754, dated 15-8-1988, after 35 days, 5 days beyond the period given by the Authority, and there is absolutely no explanation or application as to how and why the delay in making the deposit was caused and is excusable. For this reason alone appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed therefore.