JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is from an order dated 16.1.2006 whereby all further proceedings in a Workman's Compensation's. case have been stayed. As a result, the appellant, the widow, cannot proceed with the claim for compensation on account of the death of her husband. The interim order is operative till the next date of listing before the Hon'ble Single Judge. We are told that the said date is 28.2.2006. However, for the reasons given below, we feel that some of our views have to be mentioned, especially because interim orders bound in time in the above way, are sometimes extended up to the date of hearing itself. The impugned interim order contains no reasons for its passing. Whole scale staying of a Workman's Compensation proceedings' should not, with respect, ordinarily be ordered in a writ without giving adequate and compelling reasons. According to the respondent's the order was passed interalia because of the reported decision in the case of Surendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Ors. reported at , Although the decision is a reported one and although the pronouncing authority is a Division Bench, it is merely an interim order and nothing else. The facts of the case in which the interim order was passed are not available with reported order. It is opined there prima facie that because of the separation between the judiciary and executive required by Article 50 of the Constitution, Workmen's Compensation Commissioners should be either lawyers or a retired judges. As the office discharges juridical duties the Constitution requires this. The Division Bench issued notice to all such non lawyer Commissioners to show case why their appointment should not be cancelled. It further stated as follows: "We further direct that the post of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner shall be filled only by person from a legal background as mentioned above." It is said that the person before whom the case of the widow is pending is not of the legal background thought necessary by the Division Bench in Surendra Kumar's case. As such, the appointment was in violation of a Court's order. This the proceedings should be stayed. We make it quite clear that overmuch importance should not be placed upon any dicta even in a. Division Bench pronouncement, If the pronouncement is made only as and by way of an interim measure without any final view being given in that regard. The rules for appointment of Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, their qualifications etc. are not yet amended in accordance with the wishes expressed in the reported interim order of the Division Bench. It is not possible to opine even at this stage that the jurisdiction of the State Government to appoint is totally limited by the above quoted opinion of the Division Bench. No attention of ours has yet been drawn to any contempt application made be anybody for alleged breach by the State Government in appointing Workmen's Compensation Commissioners without the "requisite" legal background. Numerous question's would arise in such a contempt petition; one would be whether the direction is mandatory or directory; another would be the question of jurisdiction of even the Division Bench to pass such a wide interim order. There is no Lontempt of an order passed without jurisdiction. So far as Hon'bje Single Judges and even our coordinate Division Benches are concerned, the principle of law is too well settled that the prima facie strength of the case made out in the writ or in the appeal has to be looked at by the authority passing the interim order. Simply Because the Division Bench found prima facie strength in the case made out, in Surendra Kumar's litigation (the factual details of which are not available), no court can automatically opine that there must be a strong and arguable case in the writ petition or the appeal which is before it. In our respectful opinion only due weight should be placed on the refer in Surendra Kumar's interim order and not over much weight. Our order and observations are also interlocutory and prima facie in nature. Those will be read with due care and caution by all concerned. With the greatest of respect, the interim order should not have been passed in the manner mentioned and it is set-aside. Our order and observations are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ petition. The appeal is allowed.