THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4111 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The husband of the respondent was employed as a Conductor in the Gadwal Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. On 08.10.1996, he died out of heart attack at about 9:00 am. Stating that the death was on account of pressure during the working hours, the respondent filed W.C.Case No.78 of 1997, before the Commissioner for Workmen’s compensation & Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. The Commissioner awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,540/- as compensation through order, dated 18.12.1998. Alleging that the amount was not deposited, within the stipulated time, the respondent filed an application before the Commissioner with a prayer to impose penalty and charge interest. The appellant opposed the application mentioning the relevant facts. Through order, dated 24.09.2003, the Commissioner awarded interest at 9% under Section 4-A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act amounting to Rs.1,06,640/-. The said order is challenged in this appeal. Hear the leaned counsel for the appellant and the learned cousin for the respondent. A serious procedural irregularity is noticed in this case. The order, dated 24.09.2003, is passed in W.C.Case No.78 of 1997, as though it is the only order. The fact remains that the said case was disposed of on 18.12.1998. In case, the respondent wanted to claim ancillary or interlocutory relief, she ought to have filed a separate miscellaneous application. Passing of an order with the same number of the main case is procedurally improper. Further, the appellant has clearly stated that they have filed W.P.No.1272 of 1999, aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.1998 and that in view of an order passed by this Court in the writ petition, miscellaneous appeal was not properly appreciated. This Court is of the view that the Commissioner was not justified in awarding interest, particularly when the order passed by him in the main case is pending adjudication before this Court in one form or the other. Therefore, the C.M.A. is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 17.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.4111 of 2003 Date: 17.11.2011 JSU