2025:JHHC:23599 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No.384 of 2016 Ram Janam Kumar @ Ram Janam Gope, S/o Ranglal Gope, R/o Village- Merambir, PO- Khatanga, PS- Rania, District- Khunti, Jharkhand. .... .. ... Appellant(s) Versus 1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 2nd Floor, Ashirbad Mansion, Main Road, Ranchi and Policy Insurance Branch,office at ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Sidhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, Maharashtra. ….. Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.2 2. Sabha Mundain, wife of Late Chamu Munda. 3. Jiwan Munda, son of Late Chamu Munda, 4. Shakari Mundain, wife of Late Langra Munda Respondent No.2, 3 & 4 Resident of village Karra Marcha, P.O. & P.S. Rania, District Khunti, Jharkhand. ….Respondent No.2, 3 & 4/Claimants of W.C. No.14/2013 5. Nandi Mundain, Wife of Late Andrias Munda, 6. Vijay Munda, Son of Late Andrias Munda. 7. Maini Mundain, Wife of Late Birsa Munda Respondent No.5, 6 & 7 Resident of Village Token, P.O. Khatanga, P.S. Rania. District Khunti, Jharkhand. ……………..Respondent No.5, 6 & 7/Claimants of W.C. No.15/2013 8. Sukra Singh, son of Late Shiv Narayan Singh, 9. Arun Singh, son of Sukra Singh, 10. Buklu Kumar Singh. Son of Sukra Singh. Respondent No.8, 9 & 10 resident of village Digri Carai, P.O. & P.S. Rania, District Khunti, Jharkhand. Respondent No. 8, 9 & 10/Claimants of W.C. No.16/2013 ………. Respondents ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Appellant (s) : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For the Resp.2 to 10 : Mr. Luma Ganjhu, Advocate …... 12/ 12.08.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant M. A. has been filed for setting aside the common order dated 30.05.2016 passed by learned Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, in W.C. No.14/2013, W.C. No.15/2013 and W.C. No.16/2013 whereby and whereunder different compensation amounts were awarded against the appellant. 2. The office initially pointed out the defect by mentioning that the orders which had been impugned were passed in separate Workman Compensation Case, therefore, separate Appeal may be filed. 3. On this objection, they agreed to confine the instant Misc. Appeal with respect to W.C. No.14/2013. 2025:JHHC:23599 2 4. Vide order dated 11.02.2025 passed by this Court, the parties were directed to file supplementary affidavit, but till date, the same has not been complied with so as to amend the Cause Title of the memo of appeal and delete the other W.C. Cases from the present M.A. 5. Further, the office had pointed out that the awarded amount has not been deposited as per the provisions of Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act. In this view of the matter, the Misc. Appeals stands dismissed for non-compliance of the order and depositing the statutory amount. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-