Judgment :- 1. The writ petition has been filed to call for the records to the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Workmens' Compensation of Labour, Coimbatore, the 2nd respondent herein, dated 10.09.2007 made in I.A.No.7 of 2006 in W.C.No.70 of 2004 and to quash the same. 2. The first respondent suffered by some injury on 16.10.2003. She made a claim against the present writ petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner of Workmens' Compensation of Labour, Coimbatore, the second respondent herein in W.C.No.70 of 2004. The said claim petition came to be dismissed on 30.05.2005 holding that she is not an employer in the petitioner company and she was working under M/s.M.N. & M.S.Traders, Coimbatore and therefore, she should approach proper person. 3. Realising the mistake, she filed an I.A.No.7 of 2005, before the Deputy Commissioner of Workmens' Compensation of Labour, Coimbatore, for condonation of delay in filing the application. The said application was allowed on 10.09.2007. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed, stating that the said order is not maintainable in view of the fact that the W.C.No.70 of 2004 has been disposed of, rejecting the first respondent's claim, on 30.05.2005, holding that the petitioner is not the proper party. Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Narpat Singh v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation, in 2008(1) CTC 73. The head notes of which are as follows: Practice and Procedure – Main case finally disposed of – Maintainability of Interlocutory Application for clarification and direction – Ordinarily no Interlocutory Application is maintainable after case is finally disposed of – Interlocutory Application is maintainable in pending case – Court becomes functus officio after case is finally disposed of – Interlocutory Application ordinarily lies after disposal of case finally only for correcting clerical or accidental mistakes." 4. The first respondent workmen has accepted the said order. An interim application to implead the new management has been filed, thereby accepting the fact that the petitioner is not the correct employer. In such a view of the matter, when the W.C.No.70 of 2004 has been finally disposed of, directing the first respondent to proceed against the proper person and the petitioner having accepted to do so, can proceed against the proper person in a separate proceedings only. The question of filing interim application in the disposed of matter is contrary to law. 5. The question of filing interim application in the disposed of matter is contrary to law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interim application has been filed to condone the delay in filing the application, to correct the name of the management. Technically, the first respondent may not be justified in filing the petition for condonation of delay. Therefore, the I.A.No.7 of 2005 cannot be maintained and cannot be linked with the earlier proceedings, which has already been disposed of on 30.05.2005. 6. In such a view of the matter, the order made in I.A.No.7 of 2006 in W.C.No.70 of 2004, dated 10.09.2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Workmens' Compensation of Labour, Coimbatore is set aside. However, the first respondent is at liberty to pursue the claim as against the proper management, with liberty to file proper application for condonation of delay. The competent authority is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law as and when such claim is filed. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.