Interim stay orders may be modified on merits, and reasonable time for deposit must be given before dismissal.

A stay order is interim in nature and does not finally determine the dispute, so an application to modify it cannot be rejected merely because the authority lacks power of review; the request must be examined on its merits. The appellate authority also had to allow reasonable time to make the required deposit after disposing of the modification application before dismissing the appeal. Refusal to consider the modification request on the stated ground was incorrect, and dismissal of the appeal without reasonable time for compliance could not be sustained. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration of the modification application in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in refusing to entertain the application for modification of the stay order on the ground that it amounted to a review, and in dismissing the appeal without granting reasonable time to make the deposit.

Analysis: A stay order is only an interim order and does not finally settle the controversy. An application seeking modification of such an order cannot be rejected merely on the premise that the authority has no power of review, where the real question is whether the request for modification ought to be considered on its merits. Further, after disposing of the modification application, the appellant should have been afforded reasonable time to comply with the deposit requirement before the appeal was dismissed in the same order.

Conclusion: The refusal to consider the modification application on the stated ground was not legally correct, and the dismissal of the appeal without reasonable time for deposit could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the modification application in accordance with law.

---