Home  /  Code on Social Security, 2020  /  Section 98

Section 98: Appeals to High Court

The Code on Social Security, 2020 (Act No. 36 of 2020) • Official Statutory Text & Plain English Practice Guide

Statutory Mandate
Chapter VII: Employee's Compensation
Competent Labour Forum
Act No. 36 of 2020
Section 97 All 163 Sections of Code on Social Security, 2020 Section 99

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 98

Section 98 of the Code on Social Security, 2020 governs statutory appeals to the High Court against orders of the Competent Authority, establishing an exclusionary 'substantial question of law' threshold and imposing a mandatory pre-deposit condition precedent to prevent dilatory employer appeals.

  • Exhaustive Enumeration of Appealable Orders: Limits appeals strictly to specified statutory orders: (a) awarding lump-sum compensation or disallowing a claim; (b) awarding interest or penalty under Section 77; (c) refusing to register a memorandum of agreement; (d) distributing or allocating compensation among dependents; or (e) ordering indemnity under Section 85.
  • Substantial Question of Law as Jurisdictional Sine Qua Non: The first proviso explicitly mandates 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 refusing to allow a claim, unless the amount in dispute is not less than the prescribed statutory threshold.
  • Mandatory Pre-Deposit and Certificate Condition Precedent: The third proviso enacts a non-waivable jurisdictional requirement for employer appeals: no appeal by an employer shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the Competent Authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with them the full amount payable under the order appealed against.
  • Sixty-Day Limitation and Section 5 Condonation Standards: Prescribes a strict limitation period of sixty days for preferring an appeal, subject to condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 only where sufficient cause demonstrating bona fide diligence is established.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corp. v. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514: The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a compensation award unless a substantial question of law arises; findings of fact regarding employer-employee relationship, nature of injury, and wage rates cannot be reappreciated on appeal.
  • Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 2 SCC 45: A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the Competent Authority is the sole judge of fact, and the High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact regarding disability percentage or causal accident nexus unless perverse.
  • National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mastan (2006) 2 SCC 641: The Supreme Court affirmed that the deposit of the awarded amount and filing of the Competent Authority's certificate is a condition precedent to the very maintainability of the appeal; without such certificate, the appeal must be dismissed in limine.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Appellate advocates drafting High Court appeals under Section 98 must formulate precise, numbered 'Substantial Questions of Law' in the memorandum of appeal (e.g., misinterpretation of Schedule IV, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction over an establishment covered by ESIC, or total absence of medical evidence). Counsel must instruct the employer to deposit 100% of the awarded sum with the Competent Authority immediately, obtain the statutory Deposit Certificate, and annex it as Annexure A-1. An appeal filed without this certificate will be rejected as non-maintainable at the registry threshold.

Section 97 All 163 Sections of Code on Social Security, 2020 Section 99