JUDGMENT ;- Heard Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing appellant and Sri P. Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel representing respondents. 2. The following substantial questions of law had been pointed out by the learned Counsel representing the appellant which read as hereunder: (a) Whether imposing of 12% interest on the A ward to the accident dated 15.2.1987 invoking the Section 4-A, sub-clause (3) of W.C. Act, which clause came into force on 15.9.1995 by way of an amendment? (b) Whether the learned Commissioner is competent to demand interest on the A ward having accepted, the principle Award deposited by the appellants and same is apportioned to the claimants? (c) Whether the learned Commissioner is competent to reopen the issue once the appellants pay the entire principal amount and same was apportioned to the claimants and no further action was taken for nearly two years? 3. The learned Counsel representing the respondents had raised a preliminary objection relating to maintainability of the civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter in short referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of convenience). Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned Counsel representing the appellant however would contend that it is no doubt a show-cause notice, but however, the concluding portion of the show-cause notice clearly specifies that "Take notice that failure to deposit the interest amount Rs.l ,32,552/- with this Court will result the recovery of the interest amount by this Court, since the undersigned has delegated with powers under the said Act" and in the light of the same the issue relating to the direction to deposit interest and penalty already had been prejudged and hence the same cannot be treated as show-cause notice simplicitor. But, virtually making an order under Section 4A of the Act and hence in the peculiar facts of the case, it cannot be said that the appeal itself is not maintainable. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kancharapalem v. Gottavilli Venkata Ratnam, 2003 (2) ALD 146 = 2003 (1) An.WR 362 (AP), and would maintain that where the death of a workman was prior to the amendment dated 15.9.1995, the rate of interest is reduced to 6% from 12% per annum and in view of the same even otherwise the interest granted is excessive. Further, the Counsel would point out that this Court while making interim stay absolute permitted the claimants to withdraw half of the amount which had been deposited without furnishing any security. In the light of the same and also in the light of the decision referred to supra, it would be just and proper to modify the order. 4. On the contrary, Sri Sridhar Rao, learned Counsel representing the respondentsclaimants had taken this Court through the original order made in W.C. Case No.I29 of 1994 and would maintain that the interest of 12% per annum granted in the original order had attained finality, since the same had not been challenged. However, inasmuch as there was non-compliance of the directions relating to deposit, an order of distraint was made and the same was challenged by way of W.P. No.13194 of 1999 which was also dismissed by this Court with an observation directing the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation to keep the distraint order pending for four months enabling the present appellant to deposit the original amount of Rs.89,600/- awarded by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. But however, even in making such deposit also there was some delay. The learned Counsel also further explained the subsequent events and also the conduct of the appellant and also would maintain that the ratio laid down in the said decision cannot be made applicable for the reason that the original order had attained finality and at any rate since the C.M.A. itself is not maintainable under Section 30 of the Act, the same to be dismissed. 5. Heard the Counsel and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court on 26.2.2002 while admitting the C.M.A. granted interim stay in C.M.P. No.3806 of 2002. However, on 12.7.2002 in C.M.P. No.l0989 of 2002 and C.M.P. No.3806 of 2002 this Court made the following order: "Heard both the learned Counsel. The interim stay already granted will be made absolute, subject to the condition of the appellant depositing half of the amount covered by the proceedings No.D 1/6702/94, dated 28.12.2001, issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal within eight (8) weeks from today and in default, the stay granted shall stand vacated. After such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited without furnishing any security. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 7. After such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited without furnishing any security. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of.” 7. As can be seen from the record, C.M.P. No.9787 of 2003 was filed praying for extension of time and on 2.5.2003 this Court made the following order: "Time extended by two more weeks and the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is directed to receive the D.D.S in pursuance of the orders of this Court." Thus, by virtue of the extension, the conditional order had been complied with and the deposit of half of the amount had been made and the said amount had been received by the respondents-claimants. The order which had been challenged is the Proceedings No.D 1/6702/94, dated 28.12.2001, directing the appellant to deposit Rs.1,32,552/- and the said order is a showcause notice and the same reads as hereunder: In the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal NoD 1/6702/94 Show-Cause Notice Dated:28.l2.2001 Sub: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923W.e. Case No.l29/94 between Syed Pentu Saheb v. Thirumala Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Dist. Khammam- default in depositing the interest amount recovery of the amount under Section 31 of the W.C. Act and Revenue Recovery Act 1864 show-cause notice- issued. Ref :-1. Order dated .11.1996 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation! Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. 2. This Court show-cause of even No. dated 2.12.2001 In continuation of this Court show-cause notice 2nd cited, an order was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal vide reference 1st cited awarding the compensation amount of Rs.89,600=00 with a direction to deposit the amount through demand draft in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal within (30) days, failing which penalty @ 50% of compensation and 12% interest of the awarded amount will be imposed on respondent. But, you have deposited only compensation amount in three installments, and you are in default in depositing the interest amount from the date of accident i.e., 15.2.1987 to till the deposit of the compensation amount with this Court i.e., 9.11.1999 @ Rs.l2% i.e., Rs.l,32,552=00. Therefore, you are required to show-cause in writing within (15) days from the date of receipt of this revised show-cause notice why recovery proceedings under Section 31 of Workmen's Compensation Act and Revenue Recovery Act 1864 should not be initiated against you. Therefore, you are required to show-cause in writing within (15) days from the date of receipt of this revised show-cause notice why recovery proceedings under Section 31 of Workmen's Compensation Act and Revenue Recovery Act 1864 should not be initiated against you. Take notice that failure to deposit the interest amount Rs.l,32,552=00 with this Court will result the recovery of the interest amount by this Court, since the undersigned has delegated with powers under the said Act. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal (FAC) 8. It is pertinent to note that reference No.2 - is the show-cause notice dated 2.12.2001 and the same reads as hereunder: In the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal No.D 1/6702/94 Show-cause Notice Dated:2.12.2001 Sub: Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923W.C. Case No.l29/94 between Syed Pentu Saheb v. Thirmala Venkateshwara Rice Mill, Dist. Khammam- default in depositing the interest amount recovery of the amount under Section 31 of the W.C. Act and Revenue Recovery Act 1864 show-cause notice Issued. Ref :-Order dated .11.1996 of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. In the reference cited, an order was passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation! Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Warangal awarding the compensation amount of Rs.89,600=00 with a direction to deposit the amount through demand draft in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal within (30) days, failing which penalty @ 50% of compensation and 12% interest will be imposed on respondent. But, you have deposited only compensation amount in three installments, and you are in default in depositing the interest amount of Rs.32,108=00 from the date of accident to till the deposit of the compensation with this Court i.e., 9.11.1999. Therefore, you are required to show-cause in writing within (15) days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice why recovery proceedings under Section 3 1 of Workmen's Compensation Act and Revenue Recovery Act 1864 should not be initiated against you. Take notice that failure to deposit the interest amount of Rs.32, I 08=00 with this Court will result the recovery of the interest amount by this Court, since the undersigned has delegated with powers under the said Act. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal (FAC) 9. Take notice that failure to deposit the interest amount of Rs.32, I 08=00 with this Court will result the recovery of the interest amount by this Court, since the undersigned has delegated with powers under the said Act. Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal (FAC) 9. It is no doubt true that in the show- cause notice it is specified that "therefore, you are required to show-cause in writing within (15) days from the date of receipt of this show-cause notice why recovery proceedings under Section 31 of Workmen's Compensation Act and Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, should not be initiated against you". However, it is pertinent to note that the conclusion reads as hereunder: "Take notice that failure to deposit the interest amount of Rs.1 ,32,552=00 with this Court will result the recovery of the interest amount by this Court, since the undersigned has delegated with powers under the said Act." 10. It is needless to say that the wording of the show-cause notice definitely had not been happily worded. It is no doubt true that under Section 30(aa) of the Act which had been inserted by Act 8 of 1959, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order awarding interest or penalty under Section 4A. Section 4A of the Act deals with Compensation to be paid when due and penalty for default and the said provision reads as hereunder: (1) Compensation under Section 4 shall be paid as soon as it falls due. (2) In cases where the employer does not accept the liability for compensation to the extent claimed, he shall be bound to make provisional payment based on the extent of liability which he accepts, and, such payment shall be deposited with the Commissioner or made to the workman, as the case may be, without prejudice to the right of the workman to make any further claim. [(3) Where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall- (a) direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears, pay simple interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate not exceeding the maximum of the lending rates of any scheduled bank as may be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on the amount due; and (b) if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty: Provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show-cause why it should not be passed. Explanation:- For the purposes of this subsection, "scheduled bank" means a bank for the time being included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934). [(3-A) the interest and the penalty payable under sub-section (3) shall be paid to the workman or his dependent, as the case may be.]" 11. It is pertinent to note that Section 4A(3)(b) specifies where any employer is in default in paying the compensation due under this Act within one month from the date it fell due, the Commissioner shall if, in his opinion, there is no justification for the delay, direct that the employer shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and interest thereon, pay a further sum not exceeding fifty per cent of such amount by way of penalty. The proviso specifies "provided that an order for the payment of penalty shall not be passed under Clause (b) without giving a reasonable opportunity to the employer to show-cause why it should not be passed. 12. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Tambai, (1997) 2 LLN 884 (MP) (DB), it was held that Commissioner can levy penalty only after affording opportunity of hearing to the employer and the insurance company. 12. In New India Assurance Co., Ltd. v. Tambai, (1997) 2 LLN 884 (MP) (DB), it was held that Commissioner can levy penalty only after affording opportunity of hearing to the employer and the insurance company. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the applicability or otherwise of the decision in District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Kancharapalem v. Gottavili Venkata Ratnam (supra) for the reason that the show-cause notice is not happily worded and it is also not clear whether the whole issue in fact had been prejudged by virtue of the show-cause notice. However, half of the amount had been deposited by virtue of this Court's order and the same had been withdrawn by the respondents-claimants. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, though the order which had been challenged may not fall under Section 4A of the Act and the C.M.A. as such as against the said show-cause notice cannot be maintained, in the light of the concluding portion of the show-cause notice, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant to be given an opportunity of raising objections to the said show-cause notice in the light of the language of Section 4A of the Act aforesaid and accordingly the show-cause notice dated 28.12.2001 to be taken as show-cause notice calling upon the appellant to submit explanation and the appellant is given liberty to file his suitable objections or explanation to the show-cause notice within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and let the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Warangal, decide the issue involved after considering such objections or explanation which may be submitted by the appellant in this regard. 14. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs.