1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2335 OF 2011 Shri.Bipin Sarvaiya .. Petitioner V/s Mr.Manoj C.Gaikwad .. Respondent Mr.Dilip Mandavia for the petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE: 18th October, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Dilip Mandavia, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation and Judge, IInd Labour Court, Mumbai in Misc.Application (WCA) No.738/F-11/2009 in the Application (WCA) No. 437/C-137/2007. 2. By that order, the Commissioner has rejected the application made by the petitioner for rectification of the order dated 23.06.2009. Mr.Mandavia contended that while passing the order on 23.06.2009 the Commissioner has calculated the compensation on the basis of minimum wages. However, the same has to be calculated on the basis of last drawn salary as per the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923. According to him, the 2 calculations made are therefore incorrect. He therefore submitted that the learned Commissioner ought to have reviewed the order dated 23.06.2009 and ought to have determined the compensation on the basis of last drawn salary. 3. I do not find any substance in this submission. Perusal of Paragraph 9 of the impugned order shows that while deciding Issue No.4 regarding salary of the Respondent, the Court has recorded its reasoning in the order dated 23.06.2009 as to how it has arrived at the conclusion that the monthly salary of the Respondent was Rs.4000/- . The Commissioner has considered the evidence adduced by the Respondent as also the defence taken by the Petitioner. After considering the evidence on record, the Commissioner has concluded that the salary of the Respondent was Rs.4000/-. It was further observed that the issue regarding the salary of the Respondent was decided on merits i.e.after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and after giving hearing to both parties. The learned Commissioner therefore concluded that it cannot be said that it is an arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission and therefore found no reason to review the order dated 23.06.2009. 3 4. It is not in dispute that in the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 there is no express provision permitting the authorities to review its own order. However under Rule 32 (2) of the Workmens Compensation Rules 1924 the Commissioner is empowered to make correction of the clerical or arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or omission. Rule 32 reads as under:- “32. Judgment – (1) The Commissioner, in passing orders shall record concisely a judgment his findings on each of the issues framed and his reasons for such finding. (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.” 5. Considering this position, I do not find that the learned Commissioner committed any error while passing the impugned order. The learned Commissioner has expressly kept open remedy available to the petitioner for challenging the order dated 23.06.2009 before the appropriate forum. Hence, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Petition fails and the same is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)