JUDGMENT 1. These nine writ petitions have been heard together as they involve identical questions. It will be convenient to dispose them of by a common order. 2. As the facts are similar in all the nine writ petitions, I will notice the f acts in S.B. Civil writ petitions No. 3161 of 1974 (Swastik Chemical Lime Industries, Sojat v. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner & Others) . 3. Non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mira filed a claim petition under r. 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules alleging therein that the deceased Umeda was a workman employed by the petitioner and that he met with an accident on April 26, 1970 and received injuries on account of the said accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, as a result of which lie died. Non-petitioner No. 2, therefore, made a claim for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Jodhpur ('the Commissioner' herein) registered the claim and issued notice to the petitioner to submit its written statement on September 11, 1970. The petitioner submitted detailed written statement denying that the deceased had ever done the work of stone excavation or was otherwise employed by the petitioner. It was denied that the deceased Umeda was a Workman' as defined in S. 2 (n) of the Act. The Commissioner framed the issues. The claim petition was fixed for recording the evidence of Smt. Mira. Various adjournments were, ranted to her. The last date fixed for recording the evidence of non-petitioner No. 2 was June 5, 1973. On that date she failed to produce any evidence in support of her claim petition and also did not produce the post-mortem report. The Commissioner closed the evidence of non-petitioner No. 2. As no evidence of non-petitioner No. 2 was on record, the petitioner did not produce any evidence in rebuttal and closed its evidence. The claim petition was fixed 'or final arguments on June 28, 1973. Both the parties appeared before the Commissioner and he by his order dated June 28. 1973 dismissed the claim petition holding that in the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to decide the issues framed by him. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 submitted a review petition before the Commissioner on July 28, 1973. Both the parties appeared before the Commissioner and he by his order dated June 28. 1973 dismissed the claim petition holding that in the absence of any evidence, it is difficult to decide the issues framed by him. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2 submitted a review petition before the Commissioner on July 28, 1973. In that petition, it was stated that the learned counsel who appeared before the Commissioner on June 28, 1973 requested orally for grant of time to submit written arguments and the same was granted to hint but, however, the claim petition was decided without giving an opportunity to argue the case on her behalf. The Commissioner issued the notice of the review petition to the petitioner. The review petition was heard on September 20, 1974. An objection was raised before the Commissioner that the review petition was not maintainable under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Commissioner by his order Ex. P. 6 dated September 30, 1974 accepted the review petition considering the order sated June 28,1973 as an expat to order, and directed that the claim petition which was dismissed on June 28, 1973 may be restored. The operative part of the order (Ex. The Commissioner by his order Ex. P. 6 dated September 30, 1974 accepted the review petition considering the order sated June 28,1973 as an expat to order, and directed that the claim petition which was dismissed on June 28, 1973 may be restored. The operative part of the order (Ex. P. 6 dated September 30, 1974 runs as under:- bl Qslys dks eSfjV ij Qslyk ugha le>k tk ldrk gS pwafd 28&6&73 dks fdlh Hkh i{k dh gktjh ntZ ugha dh xbZ o tks fyf[kr vkjxwesaV~l vizkFkhZ us is'k fd;s mlds ekjftu ij vo'; 28&6&73 rkjh[k fy[kh gqbZ gS ysfdu ml ij fdlh us laf{kIr gLrk{kj buhfl;y ugha fd;s gSA vr% eSa tks vkns'k 28&6&73 dks izkFkhZ ;k mlds yk;d odhy ds vnegkujh esa fn;k x;k mls ,d rjQk cgl lquuk gh ekurk gSA pwafd ,d rjQk vkns'k izkFkhZ dks fcuk lqqus fn;k x;k blfy, esa ;g U;k; dh n`f"V ls mfpr le>rk gwa fd izkFkhZ dks cgl dk ekSdk vo'; fn;k tkuk pkfg, pwafd izkslhfMax esa tks fy[k x;k gS mles izkFkhZ dh gktjh o izkFkhZ ds gLrk{kj dgha Hkh izrhr ugh gksrsA vr% ;g Qslyk tSlk fd vizkFkhZ ds yk;d odhy us cryk;k fd esfjV ij fn;k x;k bls esfjV ij ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS] pwafd vizkFkhZ us tks fyf[kr esa vkjxwesUVl fn;s muds ckjs esa Hkh fdlh izdkj dk fooj.k ugha fn;k x;k gS& vr% ;g Qslyk esfjV ij u gksdj izkFkhZ dh vne gktjh esa lqudj fn;k x;kA vizkFkhZ ds yk;d odhy dk ;g VsDuhdy ,srjkt fd izkFkhZ us fjO;w ds fy, fy[kk gS vr% fjO;w ds vf/kdkj ugh gS ysfdu izksflfMax i<+us ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ dh mifLFkfr ntZ ugh fd;k tk ldrk pwafd izksflfMax i<+us ls cgqr gh Li"V gS fd vizkFkhZ Hkh ml jht gkftj ugh Fkk o vius fyf[kr vkjxwesaVl igys gh is'k dj pqdk Fkk o izkFkhZ dks Hkh fyf[kr es vkjxwesaVl is'k djus dks dgk tk ldrk gS vr% fnukad 28&6&73 dh izksflfMax dks ,d rjQk dk;Zokgh ekurs gq, tks dsl 28&6&73 dks [kkfjt fd;k mls jsLVksj djds dk vkns'k nsrk gwaAQSlyk vkt fnaukd 30&9&9&74 dks lquk;k x;k A Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on November 4, 1974 for quashing and setting aside the order Ex.P.6 dated September 30, 1974 restoring the case. 4. 4. Nobody has appeared on behalf of non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 despite service of notice. No return has been filed on behalf of the non-petitioners. 5. I have heard Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner in each of the writ petitions. 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order dated August 28, 1973 dismissing the claim petition filed by each of the claimants, and the only remedy provided under the Act for them was to prefer appeal under section 30 of the Act. The Commissioner had passed the following order on June 28, 1973 dismissing the claim petition. 28&6&73 bl eqdnes esa nksuksa i{kksa dh rjQ ls dksbZ 'kgnr is'k ugh gqbZ gS o odhy izkFkhZ ds Dyse esa izkFkhZ us iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ is'k djus dk fy[kk gS exj dksbZ fjiksVZ is'k ugh dh xbZA eqDnek lu~ 70 esa is'k fd;k x;k exj izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls 'kgnr is'k djus ds fy, dbZ ekSds fn;s tkus ij Hkh izkFkhZ dh rjQ ls dksbZ 'kgknr is'k ugh dh xbZA eqdnek fnukad 28&6&73 dks cgl ds fy, j[kk x;k Fkk mlds igys odhy vizkFkhZ us viuh fyf[kr cgl is'k dh Fkh exj eqdnes esa rF;ksa ij nksuksa i{kksa dh rjQ ls dksbZ 'kgnr ugh gksus ls eqdnesa es tks rufd;kr cukbZ xbZ gS mu ij fu.kZ; djuk lEHko ugh gSA vr% eqdnek [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA The remedy under the Act was to file appeal under s. 30 of the Act, for, the claims filed by each of the claimants were dismissed. 7. In Karim Dad (AIR 1930 Lah. 657) a question arose whether the Commissioner can modify his previous order granting compensation to F. The Commissioner was asked to quash the order which was wrongly made by him and to direct the refund of the money for payment to the employer. 8. Shadilal C.J. with whom Abdul Qadir, J. concurred observed as under:- "..... that he (Commissioner) has no power to set aside the previous order made by him under a mistake." 9. 8. Shadilal C.J. with whom Abdul Qadir, J. concurred observed as under:- "..... that he (Commissioner) has no power to set aside the previous order made by him under a mistake." 9. Another question that arose in that case was whether the Commissioner has inherent powers such as are conferred upon a civil court by s. 151 C.P.C. In that connection, it was stated as follows: "A perusal of the various sections of the Workman's Compensation Act shows that the Commissioner can exercise the powers of a Court only under certain provisions of the Code, but section 151 is not one of time. The Commissioner does not, therefore. posses any such inherent powers as are contemplated by the aforesaid section." This case was followed in M/s Nanak Chand v. Mahabir, (AIR 1935 All. 408) . It was held that the Commissioner did not have powers to set aside his order in review. 10. A right of review does not exist and cannot be assumed unless granted by Statute or Rules having force of statute. No Court, Authority or Tribunal can review its order until and unless the law permits it to review its orders. The jurisdiction or power to review cannot be imported in the absence of any specific provision therefor or of even indication of the conditions for the exercise of it. There is no provision under the Act or the Rules framed thereunder by which the Commissioner has been empowered to review his own orders. Respectfully following Karim Dad's case and M/s Nanak Chand's case , I hold that the Commissioner had/has no jurisdiction or power to review his order dated June 28, 1973 by which he dismissed the claim petitions. The Commissioner had no power to set aside the previous orders made by him tinder the Act. Appropriate remedy of non-petitioner No. 2 was to file an appeal tinder S. 30 of the Act which he did not avail. As the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order (Ex. P. 4) dated June 28, 1973 the order (Ex. P. 6) dated September 9, 1974 being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained. 11. The result is that the writ petitions are allowed and the order (Ex P. 6) dated September 30, 1974 of the Commissioner in each of the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. 12. P. 4) dated June 28, 1973 the order (Ex. P. 6) dated September 9, 1974 being without jurisdiction cannot be sustained. 11. The result is that the writ petitions are allowed and the order (Ex P. 6) dated September 30, 1974 of the Commissioner in each of the writ petitions is quashed and set aside. 12. As nobody has appeared on behalf of the non-petitioners despite service of notice to oppose the writ petitions, the petitioner shall bear its own costs. *******