' This appeal under section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was presented on 1st October, 1998, against the order, dated 5-9-1998 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Hyderabad in Application No,26 of 1995 under section 8(1) of the I.R.O.
And under section 10-B of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, whereby the appellant was ordered to pay to the worker a sum of Rs,1,07,150 (Rupees one lac being the amount of death compensation towards Group Insurance +7,1,50 as legal dues).
2. On 5-10-1998 it came up for Katcha Peshi. It was noticed that the appellant did not produce a Certificate of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that the amount of Rs,1,00,000 has been deposited with the Commissioner for Workmen's, Compensation. He was then given one week's time to deposit that amount and bring the Certificate. On 24-12-1998 the learned counsel for the appellant regretted for not being able to deposit the amount as ordered by this Court on 5-10- 1998. He however undertook to deposit the said amount latest by 9th January, 1999. The matter was then adjourned to 11-1-1999.
3. On 11-1-1999 the appeal was adjourned as the learned counsel for the appellant was out of Karachi and an application for adjournment was moved on his behalf.
4. Today the matter is again fixed for Katcha Peshi. Admittedly the order of the Court, dated 5-10- 1998 still remains uncomplied with.
5. It seems relevant to produce section 30 providing for appeal to this Court under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which reads as under:-- "30. Anneals.--(1) An appeal shall lie to the Tribunal from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely--
(a) 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;
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of compensation among the dependents of a deceased workman, or disallowing any claim of a person alleging himself to be such dependent;
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for the amount of an indemnity under the provisions of subsection (2) of section 12; or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or registering the same or providing for the registration of the same subject to conditions: ' Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order unless a substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and, in the case of an order other than an order such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than three hundred rupees: ' Provided further, that no appeal shall lie in any case in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by the parties: ' Provided further 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 appealed against."
6. On my querry learned counsel submitted that his contention is twofold; firstly the deceased, Nasir Iqbal had ceased to be in the employment of the appellant Mills on the date of death i,e, 13- 6-1995, and secondly the legal dues of 7,150 had already been paid to him during his lifetime. Be that as it may, these two contentions are based on facts. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The law provides that no appeal by the employer shall lie under clause (a) above unless the amount of compensation has been deposited. This proviso was added subsequently by the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1933 with an object to lessen the agonies of worker specially when he was bread-winner for the family and dies during the course of employment. As such, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
' Announced in open Court this 18th day of January, 1999.