Later judicial decisions are not new facts for review, and refusal of rectification is not itself revisable.

Review under the statutory ground of discovery of new and important facts is confined to facts not within the applicant's knowledge and not producible earlier despite due diligence; a later judicial pronouncement is not such a fact, so review was not maintainable. Rectification applies to correction of the original order, not to an order refusing rectification, so a revision cannot be sustained against a mere refusal to rectify. The Tribunal's rejection of review and the attempt to invoke rectification were therefore both outside the available statutory routes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a subsequent judicial decision could justify review of the Tribunal's earlier order under the statutory provision permitting review on discovery of new and important facts. (ii) Whether an order refusing review could alternatively be treated as an order under the rectification provision so as to sustain a revision.

Issue (i): Whether a subsequent judicial decision could justify review of the Tribunal's earlier order under the statutory provision permitting review on discovery of new and important facts.

Analysis: The statutory review power was confined to cases where new and important facts were discovered, and those facts were not within the applicant's knowledge and could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier. A later decision of another High Court did not constitute such a new fact. The attempted review was therefore outside the statutory scope.

Conclusion: The review was not maintainable on the basis of the subsequent decision and the rejection of the review application was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether an order refusing review could alternatively be treated as an order under the rectification provision so as to sustain a revision.

Analysis: Rectification contemplated correction of the original order, not refusal to rectify. The revisional remedy attached to an actual rectification order and not to an order declining rectification. On that footing also, no revision lay.

Conclusion: The refusal to treat the matter as one under rectification did not create a revisable order and the revision failed on this ground as well.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal was untenable both under the review provision and under the rectification route, so the petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review for discovery of new and important facts cannot be founded on a later judicial pronouncement, and revision does not lie against an order merely refusing rectification.

---