JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the order, dtd. 15/3/2002, in W.C.No.7 of 2000 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Vijayawada, [In short 'the Commissioner' ] filed under Ss. 20 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. 2. The appellant herein was the applicant. The respondents Nos., 1 and 2 herein were Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Commissioner.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as they arrayed before the learned Commissioner. 3. The case of the applicant in brief is that, a. On 7/3/1998, while the applicant was going in a lorry, with a load of coal, from Bihar to Piduguralla, the opposite lorry hit the lorry driven by the appellant. In that accident, he sustained injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru, from there, he was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment. There, he underwent surgery and took treatment for four months, as inpatient. b. O.P.No.1 is the owner of the lorry and the applicant was 25 years old at the time of accident and used to get salary of Rs.2, 100.00 per one month, apart from Rs.100.00 per day towards batta. As such, he claimed compensation of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 with interest against the O.P.Nos.1 and 2, since the vehicle is insured with O.P.No.2. 4. The owner of the vehicle filed counter framing the coverage of insurance policy and employment of applicant under him for the said lorry as driver, the factum of accident, the injuries sustained by the applicant and also confirmed the salary of the applicant. O.P.No.2 filed their counter denying the applicant's claim and prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. During the course of enquiry, the applicant himself was examined as A.W.1, Exs.A1 to A3 were got marked. O.P.No.1 was examined as R.W.1, but no documents were marked. No evidence adduced on behalf of the O.P.No.2. 6. On appreciation of evidence on record, after hearing the counsel for both the parties, the learned Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of accident. Thereafter, the learned commissioner on 15/3/2002, passed another order, based on a petition filed by the O.P.No.2, to restrict the claim to 60/100 x 50/100 x 101.92 = Rs.1, 25, 952.00. Thereafter, the learned commissioner on 15/3/2002, passed another order, based on a petition filed by the O.P.No.2, to restrict the claim to 60/100 x 50/100 x 101.92 = Rs.1, 25, 952.00. The learned Commissioner reconsidered the issue, reviewed the compensation and partly allowed this petition by reducing the compensation to Rs.1, 27, 074.00. 7. Having been aggrieved by the order impugned, the applicant preferred this present Appeal on the grounds that the learned Commissioner erred in reducing the compensation to Rs.1, 27, 074.00 from Rs.2, 50, 000.00, and the Commissioner ought not to have altered the order dtd. 11/12/2001, as it is the case of the amputation of leg, as such, the applicant cannot drive the lorry and the same shall have to be taken as total disability and prays to set aside the impugned order. 8. Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Rao and S.Sudarsan, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri S. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 9. The scope of Sec. 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for entertaining the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner is very limited. It clearly provides that the award of the Commissioner passed under the Act can be challenged in the appeal, where substantial question of law is involved. The appellant did not mention any substantial question of law in the memorandum of Appeal.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised an important question, as to power of the learned Commissioner to review an earlier order. 10. It is not in dispute that on the application filed by the applicant, learned Commissioner passed an order on 11/12/2001, awarded compensation of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of accident against the opposite party No.1 and 2.Subsequently, the learned Commissioner on the petition filed by the Insurance Company reviewed his earlier order and passed another order dtd. 15/3/2022, by reducing the compensation to Rs.1, 27, 074.00 from 2, 50, 000/-. 11. In the present appeal, the applicant has challenged the validity and correctness of the order on the point of reducing quantum of compensation granted apart from questioning the power of review exercised by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, the substantial question of law that arises for determination is whether a Commissioner under the Act is entitled to review his order awarding compensation or not 12. Therefore, the substantial question of law that arises for determination is whether a Commissioner under the Act is entitled to review his order awarding compensation or not 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner has no power to review his previous order awarding compensation as he does not possess any inherent power to review its earlier order under Sec. 23 of the Act. He would submit that no doubt, the Commissioner has all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, but that cannot be interpreted to mean that the Commissionercould exercise review jurisdiction. 13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to Ss. 6 and 8 of the Act, which read as follows; "Sec. 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 Sec., 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." Sec. 8. Distribution of compensation.- (1) No payment of compensation in respect of a workman whose injury has resulted in death, and no payment of a lump sum as compensation to a woman or a person under a legal disability, shall be made otherwise than by deposit with the Commissioner, and no such payment made directly by an employer shall be deemed to be a payment of compensation: (2) Any other sum amounting to not less than ten rupees which is payable as compensation may be deposited with the Commissioner on behalf of the person entitled thereto. (3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him. (3) The receipt of the Commissioner shall be a sufficient discharge in respect of any compensation deposited with him. (4) On the deposit of any money under sub-sec. (1), 1 [as compensation in respect of a deceased workman] the Commissioner 2 [***] shall, if he thinks necessary, cause notice to be published or to be served on each dependant in such manner as he thinks fit, calling upon the dependants to appear before him on such date as he may fix for determining the distribution of the compensation. If the Commissioner is satisfied after any inquiry which he may deem necessary, that no dependant exists, he shall repay the balance of the money to the employer by whom it was paid. The Commissioner shall, on application by the employer, furnish a statement showing in detail all disbursements made. (5) Compensation deposited in respect of a deceased workman shall, subject to any deduction made under sub-sec. (4), be apportioned among the dependants of the deceased workman or any of them in such proportion as the Commissioner thinks fit, or may, in the discretion of the Commissioner, be allotted to any one dependant. (6) Where any compensation deposited with the Commissioner is payable to any person, the Commissioner shall, if the person to whom the compensation is payable is not a woman or a person under a legal disability, and may, in other cases, pay the money to the person entitled thereto. (7) Where any lump sum deposited with the Commissioner is payable to a woman or a person under a legal disability, such sum may be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with for the benefit of the woman, or of such person during his disability, in such manner as the Commissioner may direct; and where a half-monthly payment is payable to any person under a legal disability, the Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application made to him in this behalf, order that the payment be made during the disability to any dependant of the workman or to any other person, whom the Commissioner thinks best fitted to provide for the welfare of the workman. (8) Where an application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, the Commissioner is satisfied that, on account of neglect of children on the part of a parent or on account of the variation of the circumstances of any dependant or for any other sufficient cause, an order of the Commissioner as to the distribution of any sum paid as compensation or as to the manner in which any sum payable to any such dependant is to be invested, applied or otherwise dealt with, ought to be varied, The Commissioner may make such orders for the variation of the former order as he thinks just in the circumstances of the case: Provided that no such order prejudicial to any person shall be made unless such person has been given an opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be made or shall be made in any case in which it would involve the repayment by a dependant of any sum already paid to him. (9) Where the Commissioner varies any order under sub-sec. (8) by reason of the fact that payment of compensation to any person has been obtained by fraud, impersonation or other improper means, any amount so paid to or on behalf of such person may be recovered in the manner here in after provided in Sec. 31. 14. The power of review with the Commissioner is only under Sec. 6 of the Act i.e., the Commissioner can review any half monthly payment payable under this Act, either under the agreement between the parties or under the order of the Commissioner and no other cases, commissioner can review his own order. A cursory look at Ss. 6 and 8 of the Act makes it clear that the Commissioner has no authority to review his own judgment andif the earlier order of the Commissioner is erroneous in law and illegal, it will be set aside or modified only by the Appellant Court. The review, which is sought by the Insurance company in the present case was not on the ground of any clerical mistake occurred in the order, but it was sought as earlier order was not in accordance with law. 15. The Commissioner does not possess any such inherent power to review the earlier order. Review is a statutory creation. The review, which is sought by the Insurance company in the present case was not on the ground of any clerical mistake occurred in the order, but it was sought as earlier order was not in accordance with law. 15. The Commissioner does not possess any such inherent power to review the earlier order. Review is a statutory creation. Learned counsel for respondent could not show any provision authorizing the learned Commissioner to review his earlier order though, the orders suffers from any irregularity. 16. In Mohd. Ikram and Another v. Labour Commissioner U.P., [Civil Misc. W.P.No.15504 of 2011Allahabad High Court.] the High Court of Allahabad on the question of review jurisdiction to the Commissioner under the Act held as follows: "23. Powers and procedure of Commissioners.- The Commissioner shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for the purpose of taking evidence on oath (which such Commissioner is hereby empowered to impose) and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and (3) material objects, [and the Commissioner shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of [sec. 195 and of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)]. 41. Certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to apply.- Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, those 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, shall apply to proceedings before Commissioners, in so far as they may be applicable. Provided that- (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Commissioner may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before him; (b) the Commissioner may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if he is satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced." A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings before the Commissioner Workmen's Compensation. Sec. 114 or Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable, which relates to review. These provisions have not been included and, consequently, the Court is of the opinion that the power of review has been specifically excluded under Sec. 23 of the Act read (4) with Rule 41 of the Rules. Rule 32(2) of the Rules provides that the Commissioner after pronouncing the decision has no power to make any addition or alteration in the judgment other than correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:- "32(2). The Commissioner, at the time of signing and dating his judgment, shall pronounce, his decision, and thereafter no addition or alteration shall be made to the judgment other than the correction of a clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission." From the aforesaid provisions, the Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has the power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from accidental slip or omission in his judgment but has no power to review his judgment. Since there is no statutory provision conferring any power of review on the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act either specifically or by necessary implication, the Commissioner has no power to review his own decision." Emphasis supplied 17. In the light of the discussion referred supra and the legal position emanating from the provisions, the appeal is liable to be allowed, since the Commissioner has no power to review his earlier order except to rectify any clerical mistakes. 18. In result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the modified order dtd. 15/3/2022, passed by the learned Commissioner is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.