JUDGMENT R. Tharani, J. Heard Mr.V.O.S.Kalaiselvam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed to direct the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul to entertain the I.A.No. Unnumbered/2015 (.2/3805/2015) in P.W.No.2 of 2014. 3. The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner in P.W.2 of 2014 filed before the Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul. The respondent herein has filed a petition in P.W.No.2 of 2014 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul for payment of arrears of salary from 01.07.2011 to 30.04.2014 to the tune of Rs. 2,71,408/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Four Hundred and Eight only). The petitioner herein has filed an unnumbered I.A. Petition to reopen the case and to review the order passed in P.W.No.2 of 2014 dated 22.11.2014. The petitioner has filed the review petition along with a condone delay petition. The review petition was returned stating that the Commissioner has no power to review his own order. Hence, the petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition. 4. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that when there is apparent error on the face of the order, there is inherent right to review his own order. Though the petitioner has cited several Judgments, the Commissioner has taken a view stating that he has no right to review his own order. 5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent was an employee of M.D.87, Oddanchatram Co-operative Urban Credit Society Lt., and worked as daily collection messenger who was on deputation transferred to the petitioner society with the condition that the wages are to be fixed by the Parent Society and the same was communicated to the petitioner society as per the proceedings dated 27.07.2011. The petitioner also fulfilled the conditions by paying wages to the respondent. He was retransferred to the Parent Society in the month of May 2014. After such retransfer, he filed a petition against the petitioner before the Payment of Wages Authority for a direction to pay the settlement wages entered into between his Parent Society and the respondent as per the settlement dated 27.06.2013. The Employer of the respondent was not impleaded as a party. When there are no delayed payment or deduction in wages, Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act will not attract. The Employer of the respondent was not impleaded as a party. When there are no delayed payment or deduction in wages, Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act will not attract. The petitioner has complied with the terms and conditions of such deputation and the same is not considered by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 6. Though the petitioner has filed revision petition on 18.06.2015 for reviewing the order, the authority has returned the petition by an order dated 06.07.2015 stating that he has no power to review his own order. In support of his contention, the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Union of India and Others, (2011) 1 CTC 375 is cited. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhwant Singh v. Jasbir Singh and Others reported in (2008) 4 CTC 745, which reads as follows: "Courts have inherent powers apart from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law-All Courts, whether Civil or Criminal possess, in absence of any express provision (as inherent in their constitution), have all such powers as are necessary to do right and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice" 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and Others. in C.M.W.P.No.37550 of 1992, which reads as follows: "Now on the question whether the Workmen's Compensation authority had jurisdiction to review, it appears that the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner exercises quasi judicial jurisdiction having all the trapping of the Court procedure whereof has not been elaborately laid down either under the Act or under the rules. The absence of specific provision does not debar such authority from dispensation of justice" 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Saktinath Mukherjee and Others v. D.P.Mazumdar reported in, 1989 AIR Calcutta 106, which reads as follows: "Inherent power could be used to correct erroneous view of Advocate" 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the Judgment passed by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Saktinath Mukherjee and Others v. D.P.Mazumdar reported in, 1989 AIR Calcutta 106, which reads as follows: "Inherent power could be used to correct erroneous view of Advocate" 10. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondent was transferred on deputation to the petitioner's society by the order of the Joint registrar Co-operative society, Dindigul for three years. He worked from 01.07.2011 till 22.07.2014. The agreement is for payment of arrears of salary as fixed by the Oddanchatharam Urban Co-operative Credit Society. Later the salary was revised by the parent society. The respondent is claiming the revised wages as he was an employee of the parent society. The respondent has filed a petition in P.W.No.2 of 2014 for payment of arrears of salary. The respondent has to approach the Labour Court and the proceedings under Section 15 of Payment of Wages Act is not applicable to this case. The respondent is not an employee of the petitioner. He was only on deputation. There is no deduction or delayed payment and prayed the Labour Court has to be directed to entertain the I.A. Petition. 11. A perusal of the records reveals that P.W.No.2 of 2014 was filed before the Labour Assistant Commissioner, Dindigul and this petitioner is the respondent in that petition. Only after hearing both sides, the Labour Assistant Commissioner has passed an order stating that the petitioner was at liberty to putforth his case before the Labour Court. It seems the petitioner has not availed the opportunity effectively. The petitioner raised two points in the petition. One reason is non-jointer of necessary party and the second point is that the petitioner is not an employer of the respondent. Though an opportunity was given to the petitioner, the petitioner has failed to put forth this points before the Labour Assistant Commissioner in his counter. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Appellate Authority. There is no necessity for the Labour Assistant Commissioner to review his own orders. There is no apparent fault in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 12. In the above circumstances, there is nothing worth enough to interfere in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. There is no necessity for the Labour Assistant Commissioner to review his own orders. There is no apparent fault in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. 12. In the above circumstances, there is nothing worth enough to interfere in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 is closed.