Jammu & Kashmir High Court
New India Insurance Company Th vs Atta Mohd Baharu &Anr on 4 July, 2026
Sr. No.45
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
FAO (WC) No. 3/2022
Uploaded on: 06.07.2026.
New India Insurance Company th. .... Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Mohd Shafi Bhat
Through: None.
Vs
Atta Mohd Baharu &Anr. ..... Respondent(s)
Through: None.
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
04.07.2026
01. This appeal is directed against an award dated 04.03.2020, passed by the
Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act 1923, (Assistant
Labour Commissioner), Ramban (hereinafter referred to as
„Commissioner‟), in the claim petition titled, „Atta Mohd Baharu Vs.
Abdul Majeed Bhat &Anr‟, whereby, the appellant-Company is directed
to deposit an award to the tune of Rs. 7,23,580/- before the Court of
Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, within a
period of 30 days from the date of passing of order, failing which,
interest @12% per annum shall accrue on the compensation amount
from the date of award till its realization.
02. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition
before the Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act, on
2
08.05.2003, whereby, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.
3,50,000/-.
03. The Commissioner, upon receipt of the claim petition, issued notice to
respondent No. 2 herein, for appearance but he failed to appear and
consequently, an ex parte award of Rs. 5,96,486/- including interest, was
passed on 30.06.2014, in favour of respondent No. 1.
04. After the ex parte award, respondent No. 2 herein, filed an application to
set aside the award, which was allowed subject to payment of costs, and
the appellant-Company was impleaded as a party in 2016. The appellant-
Company raised objections to the maintainability of the claim, but these
were rejected. Subsequently, the Commissioner, Ramban, awarded Rs.
2,49,576/- to respondent No. 1, assessing the disability at 50% and also
imposed interest of Rs.4,74,004/-@ 12% per annum from 08.05.2003 to
04.03.2020. In nutshell, an amount of Rs. 7,23,580/- stood awarded.
05. The appellant-Company challenged the direction requiring it to pay the
interest amount, contending that under the terms of the insurance policy,
it‟s liability was restricted to the principal compensation amount and did
not extend to any interest or penalty arising from the employer‟s failure
to comply with the provisions of the Workmen‟s Compensation Act,
1923.
06. Parties have not been appearing in this matter, hence, appeal is taken for
disposal on merits.
07. The Appellant-Company is aggrieved of the impugned order on the
following grounds:-
3
(a) That the impugned award dated 04.03.2020 is illegal and
contrary to law insofar as it fastens liability to pay interest upon
the appellant-insurer despite the express exclusion clause in the
insurance policy excluding liability towards payment of interest
and penalty under the Employees‟ Compensation Act.
(b) That under Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act, the
liability to pay interest for delayed payment of compensation
rests upon the employer/insured, and the insurer cannot be
directed to indemnify the insured in respect of such interest
liability, particularly in view of the contractual exclusion clause.
(c) That the Commissioner failed to consider the contractual
exclusion clause, rendering the impugned order, to the extent it
imposes interest liability upon the appellant-insurer, unstainable
and liable to be set aside.
08. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that this appeal is not
accompanied by the certificate of deposit issued by the Commissioner to
the extent that the appellant has deposited the award amount.
09. The provision of appeal is provided under Section 30 of the Employees
‟Compensation Act. For facility of reference, same is reproduced as
under;
“30.Appeals-(1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from the
following order of a Commissioner, namely-
(a) xxxxx
(b) xxxxx
(c) xxxxx
(d) xxxxx
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum of agreement or
subject to conditions: registering the same or providing for the
registration of the same.
4
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……….”.
10. From the perusal of section 30 of the Act, it is apparent that no appeal by
an employer under clause (e) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal
is accompanied by a certificate by the Commissioner to the effect that
the appellant has deposited with the Commissioner an amount payable
under the order appealed against.
11. Perusal of the record would reveal that the appeal came to be filed on
05.02.2022, but the same is not been accompanied by a certificate of
deposit as provided under third proviso of Section 30. A Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in “M/S Copenhagen Hospitality and Retails Vs.
Amir Hussain & Anr“, decided on 09.05.2025, has already held that
5
once an appeal is not accompanied by a certificate as per the clause (e),
such appeal is not maintainable.
12. Section 30 also begins with the words that “no appeal by an employer
shall lie” which makes it mandatory that the appeal has got to be
accompanied with certificate of the Commissioner to the effect that the
amount ordered by it has been deposited with him and would be payable
subject to the orders passed by the Appellate authority or Court, hence
there being non-compliance of Section 30, this appeal is held not
maintainable and for the aforesaid reasons, the same is dismissed,
enabling the respondent to seek enforcement of award in accordance of
law.
13. Copy of this order shall be notified to Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Ramban.
(Sanjay Parihar)
Judge
Jammu
04.07.2026
Renu
Renu Bala
2026.07.06 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Jammu
