Judgment : 1. The above appeal is by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Corporation against the Order dated 12.3.2010 in CMP 16/2010 in E.I.C 59/2005 by the Employees Insurance Court, Kozhikode, hereinafter referred to as the E.I Court. 2. The respondent an employee in a covered establishment after his retirement moved the E.I Court complaining the nonproviding of sickness benefit for his certified period of sickness by the Corporation. His application numbererd as E.I.C 59/2005 was allowed by E.I court directing the Corporation to grant him sickness benefit covering the 'entire period of his certified sickness' from 20.1.2005 onwards Employee later moved a petition, CMPNo.16/2010, before the E.I Court stating that he has not been granted sickness benefit for the entire certified period as directed by the court. After hearing both sides E.I. Court noticed that the findings made in its Order disposing EIC 59/2005 have not been correctly reflected in the operative portion of that Order in specifying the period for which applicant was entitled to sickness benefit. A clarificatory order was then passed allowing the C.M.P, and its operative portion reads thus:- “In the result, the application is allowed. The respondent is directed to grant sickness benefit so as to cover the entire period of the applicant's certified sickness from 20.1.2005 up to 31st December 2005.” The court further ordered that the order passed in the CMP as above has to be read and treated as part of the Order in EIC 59/2005 dated 30.5.2008. That order passed in CMP is under challenge in the appeal by the Corporation. 3. To appreciate the challenges canvassed in the appeal controversy projected and resolved in the application of employee in EIC 59/2005 has to be looked into. The employee who retired from service on 1.1.2005 claimed sickness benefit for the entire period of his certified sickness commencing from 6.1.2005 to 9/6/2005. He was granted sickness benefit by the Corporation only for 13 days i.e from 6.1.2005 to 20.6.2005. He moved the E.I Court with the application E.I.C.59/2005 for a declaration of his entitlement for getting the 'sickness benefit' during the entire period of his certified sickness. Corporation resisted that application contending that the definition of sickness benefit contemplates absence from work and as such it cannot be extended to a retired employee. He moved the E.I Court with the application E.I.C.59/2005 for a declaration of his entitlement for getting the 'sickness benefit' during the entire period of his certified sickness. Corporation resisted that application contending that the definition of sickness benefit contemplates absence from work and as such it cannot be extended to a retired employee. E.I Court dilating upon the controversy with reference to Section 2(14) of the Employees State Insurance Act, Rule 55 of Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 and also judicial pronouncements rendered on the question involved, concluded that for the benefit period in relation to the contribution period an employee is entitled to sickness benefit. In the case on hand where contribution had, admittedly, been paid with respect to the employee from 1st October 2004 to 31st March 2005 it was held that he is entitled to get 'sickness benefit' upto 31.12.2005. Coming to that conclusion his application was allowed with direction to the Corporation to grant him sickness benefit for 'the entire period of his certified sickness from 20.1.2005 onwards'. 4. Corporation complied with the Order of E.I Court, but, only to the extent of providing sickness benefit for 78 days more, over and above the 13 days already granted, on the premise that Rule 55 of ESI Central Rules, 1950 restricted payment for more than 91 days in any consecutive benefit period. Though the certified sickness period of the employee covered more than 91 days, from 6.1.2005 to 9.6.2005, he was entitled to get benefit for the sickness period of 91 days only under the Order passed by E.I court was the view taken by Corporation to provide him sickness benefit for such period only. That gave rise to the application CMP No.16/2010 by the employee before the E.I Court for orders to direct the Corporation to provide him the sickness benefit for entire period of his certified sickness as ordered in E.I.C.59/2005. 5. The present appeal raises some questions of significance whether the E.I Court can pass a clarificatory order amending its previous final order with direction to treat such clarificatory order as part of its previous order, and, if such an order is passed whether an appeal would lie before this court. E.I Court has not been conferred with power of review under the statute to examine the propriety and correctness of its final orders passed in any proceeding. E.I Court has not been conferred with power of review under the statute to examine the propriety and correctness of its final orders passed in any proceeding. Final order passed in a proceeding cannot be altered or added except for correction of any clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidential slip or omission by the E.I Court. Rule 35 of the Kerala Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1958 reads thus:- “35. Signing of order-- The final order shall be dated and signed in open court at the time of pronouncing it and, when once signed, shall not afterwards be altered or added to save in the case of clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission.” If only the court is empowered under its inherent powers or by conferment of authority under statute to amend the decree or final order when its decree or order does not correctly state what the court actually decided, it can do so. No such power has been conferred on the E.I court. Once a final order is drawn and signed it can alter that order only for correction of a clerical mistake or an error arising from accidental slip or omission. There could be no reconsideration of the merits of the case when rectification to correct a mistake or omission or error in the final order is resorted to. When such be the case, a clarificatory order cannot be passed by E.I Court directing for treating that order as part of the previous final Order already passed terminating the proceedings. In case E.I Court is satisfied that there was an omission or mistake in specifying the period to which the employee was entitled to sickness benefit while passing the final Order, it can rectify that omission or mistake either suo motu or on application. That correction has to be reflected in the final order with particulars of the date of such order, and number of application, if any, on which it has been ordered by the court. That correction has to be reflected in the final order with particulars of the date of such order, and number of application, if any, on which it has been ordered by the court. Irrespective of the irregularity noticed in the order passed in CMP 16/2010 directing for reading and treating it as part of the final order in EIC 59/2005 dated 30.5.2008, the question whether that order amounts only of a correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission has to be looked into, and, also whether an appeal would lie against the above order of E.I court. 6. The order challenged was passed in a petition moved by an employee after passing of the final Order in EIC 59/2005 complaining of the noncompliance of that Order by the Corporation. He was not paid the sickness benefit for the period of certified sickness as directed by E.I Court in its Order but only a lesser period was his complaint. E.I Court thereupon noticed that the operative portion of its order does not truly and correctly reflect its decision. Adverting to the finding rendered over the dispute raised in the proceedings of E.I.C 59/2005, as reflected in paragraph 13 of that order, the application was allowed directing for treating that order as part of the previous Order. Where E.S.I court can alter previous final order only for correcting any clerical or arithematical mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission order passed as above directing for treating it as part of previous final Order can be challenged under section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act since it involves a substantial question of law over the jurisdiction of the court to pass such an order. If there was only a correction or supplying of omission in the previous final order passed where the court is satisfied of such a case made out, then, the question may have to be looked in a different angle whether an appeal against the final order as corrected can be entertained. If the correction related to only clerical or arithmetical mistake or even supplying of an inadvertent omission, then, normally no appeal can be entertained if the final order passed previously has become insulated with finality. If the correction related to only clerical or arithmetical mistake or even supplying of an inadvertent omission, then, normally no appeal can be entertained if the final order passed previously has become insulated with finality. Sub section (2) of Section 82 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 enables an aggrieved person to prefer an appeal before the High Court from an order of Employees' Insurance Court if only it involves a substantial question of law. The present appeal has raised a question of law over the jurisdiction of the E.I Court to direct for treating and reading its order passed in a CMP moved after termination of the proceedings as part of the final order already passed. I find against the order so passed by the court an appeal would lie. 7. The E.I Court has passed the clarificatory order in C.M.P.No.16/2010 holding that the operative portion of the final Order passed in E.I.C 59/2005 does not truly and correctly reflect the finding entered in the case. In paragraph 13 of the final Order disposing EIC 59/2005, the court has declared the entitlement of applicant to get the benefit upto 31.12.2005. However, it was omitted to be stated specifically in the operative portion of that Order is the basis for issuing the clarificatory order. Operative portion in the order disposing EIC 59/2005 reads thus:- “The respondent is directed to grant sickness benefit so as to cover the entire period of applicant's certified sickness from 20.1.2005 onwards.” Under the clarificatory order issued in CMP 15/2010 E.I Court directed the Corporation to grant sickness benefit to the employee to cover his entire period of certified sickness from 20.1.2005 upto 31.12.2005. 8. The main crux of challenge set forth by the Corporation is based on the 2nd proviso to Rule 55(1) of the Employees State Insurance (Central ) Rules, 1950. The employee was initially provided sickness benefit for a period of 13 days from 6.1.2005 to 20.1.2006 and after the Order passed by the E.I Court in EIC 59/2005 he was provided sickness benefit for a period of 78 days more from 20.1.2005 to 8.5.2005 by the Corporation. Under the second proviso to Rule 55(1) of the E.S.I (Central) Rules the employee is not entitled to sickness benefit for more than 91 days is the case of Corporation. Under the second proviso to Rule 55(1) of the E.S.I (Central) Rules the employee is not entitled to sickness benefit for more than 91 days is the case of Corporation. Sub rule (1) of Rule 55 of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules,1950 thus:- “Subject to the provisions of the Act and the regulations, a person shall be qualified to claim sickness benefit for sickness occurring during any benefit period if the contributions in respect of him were payable for not less than (seventy eight days) the corresponding contribution period and shall be entitled to receive such benefit at the daily standard benefit rate for the period of his sickness.” Provided further that sickness benefits shall not be paid to any person for more than ninety one days in any two consecutive benefit periods. Certified period of sickness of the employee is from 6.1.2005 to 9.6.2005. When his claim for sickness benefit for the above certified period of sickness over which Corporation had limited the benefits only for 13 days was adjudicated on his application (E.I.C 59 of 2005) it was resisted contending that sickness benefit can be provided only for abstention of work and in the case of a retired employee it was not payable. Those contentions were repelled by the court directing the employee to grant him sickness benefit covering the entire period of certified sickness from 20.1.2005 onwards.' 9. Whether a retired employee is entitled to claim 'sickness benefit' when such benefit as defined under section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act,1948 contemplates of abstention of work, and, if at all such benefit is available to a retired employee in relation to the period of contribution made in respect of him has it to be restricted to the period specified under the second proviso to Rule 55(1) of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 can have little merit in challenging the order passed by the E.I. Court in CMP16/2010. Order passed in the CMP was only supplying of an omission or correction of a mistake in the final Order disposing EIC 59/2005. Whatever be the direction given by the E.I Court to treat it as part of the previous Order, challenges raised as aforesaid by Corporation when it has not challenged the final Order in EIC 59/2005 and that Order having become final, cannot be entertained. Whatever be the direction given by the E.I Court to treat it as part of the previous Order, challenges raised as aforesaid by Corporation when it has not challenged the final Order in EIC 59/2005 and that Order having become final, cannot be entertained. Respondent was entitled to have sickness benefit for the entire period of certified sickness was the finding entered by E.I Court allowing his application EIC 59/2005. Respondent moved that application when his claim for sickness benefit was restricted to 13 days by the Corporation. His claim for sickness benefit for the entire period of certified sickness was upheld by the E.I Court repelling the objection of Corporation. While declaring his right to have sickness benefit for the entire certified period of sickness the period as such was not specified but it was only stated that he has to be granted 'sickness benefit' for the entire period of certified sickness from 20.1.2005 onwards would not enable the Corporation to limit such period to 91 days. Second proviso to Rule 55(1) of the Employees State Insurance (Central) Rules, 1950 cannot be applied to the case. If at all that rule had any application in the claim raised by applicant Corporation should have raised it in the proceedings in EIC 59/2005. When the Order passed in that proceeding has become final with no challenge from the Corporation, the order passed in CMP 16/2010 supplying the omission in the operative portion of the previous Order with respect to the period of benefit in relation to certified period of sickness of employee cannot be resisted or assailed by Corporation and that too on challenges not raised in the proceedings of E.I.C.59 of 2005. Appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed.