Recall application treated as disguised review; tribunal power to reopen merits-based orders remains confined to exceptional grounds.

A recall application cannot be used to reopen a merits-based order where the earlier application was already heard and rejected; the relief sought was therefore in substance a review. The tribunal's power to recall is confined to exceptional situations such as fraud, mistake, or lack of jurisdiction, none of which was shown. A rectification provision does not apply to correct or revisit a substantive decision, and the procedural basis invoked for inherent powers did not assist on these facts. The Adjudicating Authority was therefore right to refuse entertainment of the recall application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application styled as a recall petition was in substance a review of the earlier order and whether the Adjudicating Authority had power to recall or rectify that order in the circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The earlier application had been heard and rejected on merits. Merely describing the subsequent application as one for recall did not alter its true character, since the relief sought was effectively to reopen and change the earlier decision. The authorities relied upon regarding inherent power to recall orders dealt with cases of fraud, mistake, or lack of jurisdiction, none of which was present here. The reliance on a rectification provision was also held to be misplaced, as the case did not involve correction of any clerical or similar error. The cited procedural provision for inherent powers did not assist the appellant on these facts.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority rightly refused to entertain the recall application, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tribunal cannot permit a recall application that is a review of a merits-based order, absent fraud, jurisdictional defect, or a comparable exceptional ground warranting recall.

---