JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act) is directed against the order dated 10-3-2011 passed by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner/District Magistrate, Uttarkashi (for short the W.C. Commissioner) in Review Case No. 3 of 2009, Shivdei and others Vs. Cooperative Societies Uttaranchal and others, whereby the review petition filed by the respondents for review of the order dated 23-7-2009 has been allowed and the earlier award dated 23-7-2009 has been set aside. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the claimants filed their claim petition for compensation under Section 3 of the Act on account of accidental death of the deceased Dev Singh, Collection Amin, which was registered as Case No. 15 of 2006, Smt. Shivdei and others Vs. Cooperative Societies Uttaranchal and two others. The claim petition was contested by the opposite party-respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the WC Commissioner by filing their written statement. In that case, issues were framed by the W.C. Commissioner and Issue No.1 pertains whether the deceased was a workman of the respondents and whether he died in the course of his employment as such. Issue No. 3 pertains whether the deceased was being paid a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month as salary/commission by the opposite parties. If so, its effect. Both the parties led their evidence in the case. 4. The learned W.C. Commissioner after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has come to the conclusion that the deceased was a workman of the respondent no.2. On Issue No.3, the learned W.C. Commissioner determined the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-. The learned W.C. Commissioner has also observed on Issue No.4 that on behalf of the respondents-opposite parties, an endorsement was made on paper no. 2A/9 that no evidence has to be led by the opposite parties in the case. However, the lower court record shows that such an endorsement has been made on the margin of order-sheet dated 2-7-2009 (paper no. 2A/6). Ultimately, by the award dated 23-7-2009, a compensation of Rs. 3,56,980/- was awarded to the claimants. The learned W.C. Commissioner has, however, declined to grant any interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants. 5. However, the lower court record shows that such an endorsement has been made on the margin of order-sheet dated 2-7-2009 (paper no. 2A/6). Ultimately, by the award dated 23-7-2009, a compensation of Rs. 3,56,980/- was awarded to the claimants. The learned W.C. Commissioner has, however, declined to grant any interest on the amount of compensation to the claimants. 5. It is significant to mention at the outset that in this case the compensation was claimed on account of the death of the deceased, that the award was passed by the W.C. Commissioner and that the claimants have not assailed the award dated 23-7-2009 before any higher Forum in appeal, as contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants. 6. It appears that instead of depositing the amount of compensation with the W.C. Commissioner as directed in the impugned award dated 23-7-2009, the Opposite Party-respondent no.2 moved a review application to question the findings recorded by the W.C. Commissioner in the award passed by him. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants herein has vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the learned W.C. Commissioner suffers from a manifest error of law and the learned W.C. Commissioner has exceeded the jurisdiction especially by exercising the jurisdiction of review under Order XLVII of the C.P.C., while the provisions of Order 47 CPC have not been made applicable under Rule 41 of the Workmen’s Compensation Rules, 1924. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimants further submitted that power of review vested with the learned W.C. Commissioner has been mentioned in Section 6 of the Act and therefore, the review is permissible only in respect of a case of permanent disablement and not to a death case. 8. I have pondered over the matter. Section 6 of the Act reads as under:- “6. Review.-(1) Any half-monthly payment payable under this Act, either under an agreement between the parties or under the order of a Commissioner, may be reviewed by the Commissioner, on the application either of the employer or of the workman accompanied by the certificate of a qualified medical practitioner that there has been a change in the condition of the workman or, subject to rules made under this Act, on application made without such certificate. (2) Any half-monthly payment may, on review under this section, subject to the provisions of this Act, be continued, increased, decreased or ended, or, if the accident is found to have resulted in permanent disablement, be converted to the lump sum to which the workman is entitled less any amount which he has already received by way of half-monthly payments.” 9. From a bare perusal of the provision of Review as contained in Section 6 aforesaid, it is crystal clear that the provision of review would apply in a case of permanent disablement of the workman and where there is possibility of increase, decrease or end of permanent disablement of the workman even after passing of the award by the W.C. Commissioner and this provision has no nexus with a case of death of a workman. 10. In the case at hand, the claim case was heard and decided on merits by the award dated 23-7-2009. The learned W.C. Commissioner had already recorded findings on the specific issues framed in the case after appraisal of the evidence on record. Neither the claimants (appellants herein) nor the respondents appears to have assailed the award dated 23-7-2009 before any higher Forum. In my considered view the learned W.C. Commissioner could not have exercised the powers of review as envisaged by Section 6 of the Act in the case at hand particularly when the provisions of Section 114 or Order 47 C.P.C. are not made applicable to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned W.C. Commissioner is perverse and without jurisdiction. There was no occasion for the learned Commissioner to have recalled the award dated 23-07-2009, which was passed in a death case. Even though no interest was awarded in the claim petition, the claimants-appellants have not assailed the said award. 11. For what has been stated above, it is obvious that the impugned order dated 10-3-2011 passed by the leaned W.C. Commissioner is perverse and the same is without jurisdiction. All the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal stand answered accordingly. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed outright. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The award dated 23-7-2009 passed by the W.C. Commissioner deserves to be maintained. 12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-3-2011 is set aside. The award dated 23-7-2009 is maintained. Costs easy. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be allowed outright. The impugned order is liable to be set aside. The award dated 23-7-2009 passed by the W.C. Commissioner deserves to be maintained. 12. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10-3-2011 is set aside. The award dated 23-7-2009 is maintained. Costs easy. The lower court record be sent back immediately to the learned W.C. Commissioner concerned for compliance of the award dated 23-7-2009.