ORDER : This review petition is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the order dated 28.10.2016 in MFA No.3271/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners as well as I.A.No.1/2013 seeking for condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the appeal came to be dismissed. 2. Claimants are the legal representatives of deceased-workman who died in the employment accident which occurred on 25.04.2010. It is contended by the claimants/petitioners that the deceased-Sri. Prakash was working as a cleaner in the Volvo Bus bearing registration No.KA-01-D-8424 belonging to respondent No.1 and on the ill-fated day i.e., on 25.04.2010, he died owing to personal injury caused due to accident arisen out of and in the course of his employment while working as a cleaner in the said bus; the deceased-workman was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.8,000/- in addition to the daily bata at Rs.250/- from respondent No.1. 3. The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Hassan Sub-division, by order dated 04.07.2012 determined monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- considering the Explanation II to Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (‘Act’ for short). On the challenge made by the claimants before this Court as regard the determination of the monthly income of the deceased-workman, this Court placing reliance on the Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act confirmed the order of the Commissioner, dismissing the appeal as well as application filed by the claimants seeking for condonation of delay of 213 days in filing the appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel, Sri. H.J. Ananda, appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds as aforesaid submitted that the accident in question occurred on 25.04.2010, whereas Explanation II to Section 4 of the Act was omitted by Act No.45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010. Simultaneously, sub-section (1-B) was inserted to Section 4 which contemplates the Central Government to issue notification in the Official Gazette to specify for the purpose of sub-section 1, such monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary. Accordingly, Central Government has specified for the purpose of sub-section 1 “Rs.8,000/-” as monthly wages vide S.O.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 with effect from 31.05.2010. Accordingly, Central Government has specified for the purpose of sub-section 1 “Rs.8,000/-” as monthly wages vide S.O.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 with effect from 31.05.2010. During the said interregnum period, though no monthly wages in relation to an employee was specified, the monthly wages of the workman cannot be restricted to Rs.4,000/- placing reliance on the Explanation II to Section 4 which was not in existence on the date of the accident. 6. This contention of the petitioners appears to have some force. 7. In view of the amendment brought to Section 4 by omitting Explanation II with effect from 18.01.2010 which specified the monthly wages of workman shall be deemed to be Rs.4,000/- only, even where the monthly wages of workman exceed Rs.4,000/- for the purpose of Clause (a) and (b) of Section 4, the monthly wages of the workman cannot be fixed at Rs.4,000/- in the present case where undisputedly accident occurred on 25.04.2010. It is true that sub-section (1-B) has been inserted by Act No.45 of 2009 with effect from 18.01.2010, but the Central Government has specified, for the purpose of sub-section 1, Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages by Notification dated 31.05.2010 with effect from 31.05.2010 during the interregnum period i.e., between 18.01.2010 and 31.05.2010, no monthly wages being specified by the Central Government, same cannot be restricted or a deemed provision can be applied to fix monthly income of the workman at Rs.4,000/-. Hence, it appears that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in passing the order dated 28.10.2016 and the matter requires consideration on this aspect, the same not being adjudicated. I am of the considered opinion that review petition deserves to be allowed recalling the order dated 28.10.2016 passed in MFA No.3271/2013. Hence, the following ORDER (i) Review Petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 28.10.2016 passed in MFA No.3271/2013 is recalled and the matter is restored to its original position keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties to be agitated in the said appeal.