JUDGMENT Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the respondent No.1. 2. It appears that the respondent No. 2 filed an Application under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation on account of injury sustained by him while working in the establishment/factory of the petitioner. The said Application was registered as W.C. Case No. 96 of 2003. 3. After the exchange of affidavits between the parties in the said case and the leading of evidence by both the parties, the respondent No. 1 by the judgment and order dated 6.12.2007 awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 1,72,994.82 to the respondent No. 2. The said amount was to be deposited within 30 days through a Bank Draft failing which the petitioner was made liable to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of incident till the date of payment. 4. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 6.12.2007 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. 5. It appears that the petitioner thereafter filed restoration application, which was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 31.3.2008. Copy of the said order dated 31.3.2008 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. 6. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another application dated 19.5.2008, inter alia, praying for reconsideration of the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the respondent No. 1. Copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. 7. By the order dated 12.11.2008, the respondent No. 1 has dismissed the said application dated 19.5.2008 filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is, inter alia, stated in the said order dated 12.11.2008 that as the case has been finally decided on merits by the order dated 6.12.2007 after hearing the parties, there does not appear to be any legal ground for again passing order on merits in view of the application dated 19.5.2008 filed on behalf of the petitioner. 8. I have heard Shri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 9. 8. I have heard Shri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. 9. It is submitted by Shri S.N. Dubey that it is open to the respondent No.1 to correct mistakes apparent on the face of record in its order, and therefore, the said application dated 19.5.2008 has been wrongly rejected by the respondent No.1 by the impugned order dated 12.11.2008. 10. Shri S.N. Dubey has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad v. Union of India, 2006 (111) FLR 1211 (SC). 11. I have considered the submissions made by Shri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, and I find myself unable to accept the same. 12. A perusal of the application dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) shows that by the said application the petitioner sought reconsideration and review of the judgment and order dated 6.12.2007. 13. The said application was not an application merely for correction of mistakes apparent on the face of record but was an application for review of the judgment and order dated 6.12.2007. 14. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of this Court in Virendra Swaroop Srivastava v. Vaishya Brothers and Co. (P) Ltd. and another, 2008 (4) ALJ 267 (paragraph 48) wherein the distinction between the power to correct clerical/arithmetical mistake and the power of review has been noted. 15. It is relevant to note that sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924 framed under Section 32 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, inter alia, provides that after the judgment is signed, dated and pronounced by the Commissioner, “no addition or alteration shall be made to the judgment other than the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission”. 16. Therefore, the Commissioner may correct clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission in his judgment. 17. However, there is no provision under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 for review of the judgment by the Commissioner. 18. Section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924 make certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before Commissioners. 17. However, there is no provision under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 or the Workmens Compensation Rules, 1924 for review of the judgment by the Commissioner. 18. Section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924 make certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to proceedings before Commissioners. However, these provisions do not include Section 114 or Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which deal with “Review”. 19. Hence, while the Commissioner has power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from accidental slip or omission in his judgment, he has no power to review his judgment. 20. Shri S.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that there is no statutory provision for review of the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 1 awarding compensation to the respondent No. 2. 21. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. [See : Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 (paragraph 4); Kailash Singh Rajput v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1979 All 110 (paragraph 9)]. 22. As there is no statutory provision conferring power of review on the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 specifically or by necessary implication, the Commissioner has no power to review his judgment. 23. In view of the above, it was not open to the respondent No. 1 to review its own judgment and order dated 6.12.2007. 24. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application dated 19.5.2008 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) has rightly been dismissed by the respondent No. 1 by the order dated 12.11.2008. 25. As regards the decision in Mathura Prasad case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said decision lays down as under : “14. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub-rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. When an employee, by reason of an alleged act of misconduct, is sought to be deprived of his livelihood, the procedures laid down under sub-rules are required to be strictly followed. It is now well settled that a judicial review would lie even if there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If statutory authority uses its power in a manner not provided for in the statute or passes an order without application of mind, judicial review would be maintainable. Even an error of fact for sufficient reasons may attract the principles of judicial review.” 26. The above decision deals with the scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental enquiry. The said decision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 27. In view of the above, I am of the view that the writ petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 28. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ————