Skip to content


Nathamuni Gounder and Vs. the State of Tamilnadu Represented by Its Secretary, Labour and Industries Department - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petition No. 10182/85
Judge
Reported in(1986)IILLJ423Mad
ActsWorkmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Sections 30
AppellantNathamuni Gounder and ;janardhanan
RespondentThe State of Tamilnadu Represented by Its Secretary, Labour and Industries Department
Excerpt:
- - an appeal being a creature of statute, the right of appeal can always be limited by the law which gives that right and the provisions of the statute settling the conditions for preferring an appeal cannot be held to be bad in law. even if a statute denies a right of appeal, that statute cannot be held to be a bad legislation......the said proviso practically denies the right of appeal. i am not able to spell out that the said proviso denies the right of appeal as such. by enjoining the appellant to deposit the amount, the subject matter of the appeal, it cannot be stated that the appeal remedy is taken away. it is an age-old principle of law that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right attaching to any litigation. a right of appeal as such does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly given by statute or by rules having the force of statute. an appeal being a creature of statute, the right of appeal can always be limited by the law which gives that right and the provisions of the statute settling the conditions for preferring an appeal cannot be held to be bad in law. even if a statute.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This writ petition is directed against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (VII of 1923), hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioners are employers. S. 30 of the Act enables the petitioners to file an appeal against the award. However, Mr. R. Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the third proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 30 of the Act enjoins upon the employer to deposit the amount payable under the award before an appeal is entertained. The learned counsel would submit that the said proviso practically denies the right of appeal. I am not able to spell out that the said proviso denies the right of appeal as such. By enjoining the appellant to deposit the amount, the subject matter of the appeal, it cannot be stated that the appeal remedy is taken away. It is an age-old principle of law that the right of appeal is not a natural or an inherent right attaching to any litigation. A right of appeal as such does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly given by statute or by rules having the force of statute. An appeal being a creature of statute, the right of appeal can always be limited by the law which gives that right and the provisions of the statute settling the conditions for preferring an appeal cannot be held to be bad in law. Even if a statute denies a right of appeal, that statute cannot be held to be a bad legislation. If a legislation thinks, in a particular case, that no appeal should be provided, or the right of appeal which it provided should be exercised in a particular manner and subject to certain conditions, that legislation has always been countenanced to be a proper legislation. The reason behind the said proposition is, the right of appeal is a creature of statute and its exercise, its scope and its results shall always be controlled by the provisions of the statute which creates that right. Hence, on the ground that there is no effective alternative remedy available for the petitioners. I do not find warrant to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //