' An application was moved by Muhammad Akram respondent No, 3 on 24-5-1988 before Commissioner Workmen's Compensation, Gujranwala, respondent No, 2 for payment of a sum of Rs,25,200 to him as compensation. The allegation was that while working in the factory of petitioner his left hand was completely cut. Petitioner appeared before respondent No, 2 on 25-2-1990.
However, he failed to appear later on and as a result thereof on 4-2-1990 respondent No, 2 granted a sum of Rs,24,000 as compensation to respondent No,3. Under the provisions of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the petitioner was required to file a certificate along with the memorandum of appeal showing that he had already deposited with the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation the requisite amount payable under the order. However, petitioner did not deposit the amount and as a consequence thereof, learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed his appeal on 24-9-1990 on that ground. Learned counsel contends that there was no jurisdiction vested with the learned Appellate Tribunal to reject the appeal of the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him in that behalf. Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs,24,000 on 18-12-1990 with a view to hear him. In obedience to the order of this Court a sum of Rs,24,000 was deposited by the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length. View point of the respondents has also been taken into consideration. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it was necessary for the petitioner to have complied with the mandatory provisions of section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 by depositing the requisite amount with the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, respondent No,
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order passed by respondent No, 2 was ex parte and as such petitioner was not under any legal obligation to deposit the said amount. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel inasmuch as admittedly petitioner did appear before respondent No, 2 at the early stage of the case and did not appear later on without any valid justification. He also moved an application for setting aside the ex parte order passed by respondent No,
2. In this view of the matter it does not lie in his mouth to say that he was not under any legal obligation to deposit the amount to enable him to file an appeal against the order of respondent No,
2. This is a mandatory requirement of law which has not been fulfilled by the petitioner. Thus his appeal before the respondent Appellate Tribunal was not competent and as such it was rightly rejected. Learned counsel was unable to point out any legal flaw much less jurisdictional defects in the impugned orders having been passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The orders appear to be just and proper and have been passed in the light of the law on the subject. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the petition which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.