GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner and others filed application before the respondent No. 1 seeking compensation under the workmen's Compensation Act in connection with the injuries sustained by them in an accident. By an order at Annexure A, dated 9. 7. 96 the respondent No. 1 awarded compensation of Rs. 39,412 to the petitioner and Rs. 5,600 to the respondent No. 2, Basha. On the application made by the respondent No. 2 that the compensation amount has been wrongly interchanged inasmuch as the compensation payable to him has been awarded to the petitioner and that the amount payable to the petitioner has been awarded to him, the respondent no. 1, exercising the powers under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure code, has changed the compensation amount as sought by the respondent No. 2 under the impugned order at Annexure B. This has resulted in reduction of the compensation amount of Rs. 39,412 to Rs. 5,600 to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said order. ( 2 ) THE short question to be considered in this case is, whether the respondent No. 1 was justified in passing the impugned order at Annexure B by interchanging the compensation amount among the petitioner and the respondent No. 2? ( 3 ) A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the respondent No. 1, in the guise of making correction by exercising the power under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code has not only changed the compensation amount but the finding with regard to the percentage of disability sustained by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 is also changed. This was totally impermissible. ( 4 ) AGAINST the order of the respondent no. 1, the aggrieved party can file appeal under section 30 (1) (a) of the Act. The respondent No. 2 should have challenged the order at Annexure A by filing appeal. That has not been done in the instant case. ( 5 ) THE exercise of power by the respondent No. 1 under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, was not available to him and the same is without the authority of law. That has not been done in the instant case. ( 5 ) THE exercise of power by the respondent No. 1 under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Civil Procedure Code, was not available to him and the same is without the authority of law. The alleged corrections are not mere corrections made in the original order in respect of quantum of amount but the finding with regard to the percentage of disablement of the two workmen have been interchanged. Such a thing should not have been done by the respondent No. 1. ( 6 ) IT is also seen from the impugned order that the same had been passed without notice and without hearing the petitioner. Hence, it is violative of principles of natural justice. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned order at Annexure B cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure B is quashed. Liberty is reserved to the aggrieved party to file appeal under section 30 of the Act to work out the rights. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, it is open to file an application seeking condonation of the same and the appellate authority shall consider the same bearing in mind the pendency of this writ petition. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .