Rectification cannot be used as review: Section 129B(2) covers only apparent mistakes on the record.

Rectification under Section 129B(2) is confined to correction of a mistake apparent from the record and operates only in the manner of Section 152 CPC. It cannot be used to reopen findings, reconsider omitted evidence, or substitute a fresh decision, because that would amount to review. Review jurisdiction exists only where the statute expressly confers it. An application styled as rectification but seeking reconsideration of the merits is therefore not maintainable under Section 129B(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether an application styled as rectification under Section 129B(2) could be entertained when it in substance sought review of the Tribunal's earlier order.

Analysis: The rectification power under Section 129B(2) is confined to correction of a mistake apparent from the record and is analogous to Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It does not confer any power of review. Where the grievance is that a piece of evidence was not considered and the entire finding is sought to be reopened or substituted, the remedy is in substance a review and not rectification. Review can be exercised only when the statute expressly confers that jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The rectification application was rightly dismissed as one seeking review, which was not maintainable under Section 129B(2).

Ratio Decidendi: Rectification under Section 129B(2) is limited to correcting an apparent mistake on the record and cannot be used to reopen or substitute findings, because review jurisdiction must be expressly conferred by statute.

---