Judgment:- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. This appeal by the State of Kerala is against an award passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. 2. The respondents are the dependents of a person who was employed as a mazdoor, stated to be on temporary basis as part of watch and ward staff for the Forest Department. The plea of the State is that the workman was attacked by a Panther on 24.2.2005; the injuries suffered by him then were cured and he was discharged from hospital on 7.3.2005 and his death, later, on 30.9.2005, was as a result of injuries sustained while cutting down a tree which stood in the estate of M/s.Harrison Malayalayam Limited, and, Perunad Police had registered Crime No.142 of 2005 for unnatural death and later, a final report was filed on 18.10.2005. The dependents of the workman moved the Commissioner on the premise that the death was as a result of the attack by Panther. That is how the award has been passed. 3. The fact of the matter remains that though the State Government entered appearance, it did not file objections before the Commissioner. An ex parte award was, thus, issued on 18.9.2009. On 18.12.2009, Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni submitted a petition to set aside that ex parte order. On 28.1.2010, the Commissioner dismissed that application on the premise that the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and Rules thereunder do not authorize review of an order once passed. We are unable to endorse the view of the learned Commissioner that the application for reviewing the ex parte order ought to have been dismissed. Power of review is not the same as recalling an order passed ex parte. The authority to pass an order recalling an order passed ex parte, is available in Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1924 by which Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest Department. 4. On facts, appreciation of evidence to decide the issue as to whether the workman died as a result of the attack by Panther or as a result of the fall from a tree is a matter that can be decided better on documentary evidence, including police records. 4. On facts, appreciation of evidence to decide the issue as to whether the workman died as a result of the attack by Panther or as a result of the fall from a tree is a matter that can be decided better on documentary evidence, including police records. Even if he died as a result of Panther attack in the course of employment, that would be a matter of record with the Government. It is stated by the learned Special Government Pleader that the deceased workman had, during his lifetime, received an amount of Rs.5,000/- as payment ex gratia on account of the attack by the Panther. We are clear in our mind that the impugned order, if it stands, would result in the manifest miscarriage of justice in as much as the State interest, including the Exchequer, would continue to be deprived without being extended due opportunity of hearing. However, we would set aside the award and issue an order of remit only on terms. In the result, this appeal is allowed without expressing anything on merits and setting aside the impugned award. The case is remitted for reconsideration by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the Commissioner on the 7th August, 2012. This order of remit will be conditional on the appellants/State paying the respondents an amount of Rs.5,000/-as costs payable to the learned counsel appearing in this appeal for the respondents and receipt being produced before the Commissioner on the first date of hearing.