JUDGMENT: By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-Insurance Company has challenged the order dated 14th September, 1995 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Bokaro Steel City in Miscellaneous Case No. 1/1998, whereby he has reviewed its earlier order dated 6th December, 1990 passed in W.C. Case No. 5/86. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a claim petition made before the respondent no. 1 i.e. Workmen Compensation Case No. 5/86, the learned court passed an order dated 6th December, 1990 in the following terms:- The employer must be directed to pay simple interest of 6% on the amount due together with a penalty interest to the extent of 50% of the compensation amount payable. Since the vehicle of opposite party no.1-employer was insured, therefore, the liability to pay compensation is also that of the Insurance Company-opposite party no. 2. Therefore, he held that both opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with penalty and interest. He accordingly directed the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 to make payment of compensation As. 35,470.80 alongwith 6% interest simple per annum on this amount and 50% penalty of previous amount i.e. As. 17,735.04/-. It was further observed that if the amount is not paid within two months from the date of order it shall carry further interest @ 6% per annum. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the petitioner paid Rs. 35,470.80 assessed as the compensation, to which it was liable. The owner of the truck, who is the respondent no. 2 thereafter preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 17/91 (R) before the High Court under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order. The said Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed on 28th June, 1991. The respondent no. 2 owner thereafter preferred a Miscellaneous Case No. 1/1998 seeking review of the original order/award dated 6th December, 1990, by which it was held liable to pay 6% interest and penalty to the extent of 50% invoking the provisions of Section 114 read with Section 151 .of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 41 of the Workmen'S Compensation Rules, 1994 (sio-1924?). It Is submitted that the review itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Section•. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent no. It Is submitted that the review itself was not maintainable under the provisions of Section•. 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The respondent no. 1, Workmen Compensation Commissioner only have a limited power for review• under the circumstances which are provided thereunder. By referring to Rule 41, it is further submitted that the rules have been framed to carry out the purposes of the Act and therefore even the Rule 41 does not permit the respondent no. 1 to exercise powers to review its own order, by which the liability has been held in the terms indicated in the original order. Under Rule 41, only certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable in a proceeding before the Commissioner and those are contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX; Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, Rules 1 and 2. The specific objections were taken before the learned Commissioner by the petitioner relating to maintainability of the review as also the gross delay in filing it and further on the merits of the claim of the owner. By the impugned order, the learned Commissioner Workmen Compensation has, however, proceeded to hold that the review is maintainable under the inherent powers of the concerned court and he has further condoned the gross delay in filing the review and proceeded to hold that the owner in question is not liable to pay the interest as well as penalty part as the vehicle in question was insured with the petitioner-Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the aforesaid ground stating that it is wholly illegal and the learned court has gone beyond jurisdiction in deciding an application for review preferred under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation Rules, 1994 (sic-1924?). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order by stating that the learned court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner has considered the objection of the petitioner-company and has held that since he has inherent powers to correct any errors in the original order by his predecessor the original order can be reviewed by him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-workmen, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order by stating that the learned court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner has considered the objection of the petitioner-company and has held that since he has inherent powers to correct any errors in the original order by his predecessor the original order can be reviewed by him. It is further submitted that in the circumstances of the present case since the vehicle in question was insured with the petitioner company the learned court has found that the petitioner-company was the sole person liable to pay compensation alongwith interest and penalty. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through thp. relevant materials on record including the provisions of law relied upon by the petitioner. Section 6 of the Workmen Compensation Act. 1923 is quoted hereunder:- "Section 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." 7. It is trite to state here that the powers of review are creature of the statute under which the authority exercises its power of review. The power of review can be enlarged or circumscribed by the Legislature in any particular Act under which the authority has to exercise the power of review. In the instant case, a perusal of Section 6 thereof, indicates that the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner had a limited power of review only in the circumstances indicated therein so as to revise any half-monthly payment payable under the Act under such change in the condition of 'the workman which are indicated under the said provision. In the instant case, a perusal of Section 6 thereof, indicates that the Court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner had a limited power of review only in the circumstances indicated therein so as to revise any half-monthly payment payable under the Act under such change in the condition of 'the workman which are indicated under the said provision. In the present case, even' the Rule 41, which obviously are framed 'to fulfill the object of the Act can (sic-'not?) go beyond substantive provisions of the Act itself under which a limited power of review has been conferred to the authority i.e. Workmen Compensation Commissioner. The Rule 41, in fact, refers to only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, which can be applied in a proceedings before the Commissioner. 8. In these circumstances, the learned Workmen Compensation Commissioner was acting wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining the review preferred by the respondent no. 2-ovvner for reviewing the original order on merit. The liability• created under the original order, is to saddle upon the owner so far as it relates to the penalty and the interest part while compensation has been imposed upon the Insurance Company. Section 4A of the Act of 1923, clearly lays down the liability of the employer in cases of such claims for compensation. The learned court of Workmen Compensation Commissioner awarded the penalty and the interest part on the employer while holding the petitioner-company and the owner jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as well as rest of the penalty and interest. Miscellaneous Appeal of the owner against the said order stood dismissed as has been indicated hereinabove and there was no reason for the Workmen Compensation Commissioner thereafter to entertain a review, which was itself grossly barred by time having been filed almost eight years after passing of the original order on 6th December, 1990 in Miscellaneous Case No. 1/98. 9. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law being passed wholly without jurisdiction by the respondent no.1-Workmen Compensation Commissioner and accordingly it is quashed. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid term.