Rectification jurisdiction cannot reopen a consent order for rehearing; only arithmetical errors may be corrected.

Rectification proceedings cannot be used to recall a consent order or reopen the appeal for rehearing when the alleged mistake is not arithmetical. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order was passed on the conceded position that the adjudicating Deputy Commissioner lacked pecuniary jurisdiction, and therefore treated it as a consent order. Applying the settled limit on rectification jurisdiction, it held that only clerical or arithmetical errors can be corrected in such proceedings. The rectification application was rejected as not maintainable, leaving the earlier order undisturbed and the matter to be re-adjudicated by the Commissioner after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rectification of mistake application could be used to recall the earlier order and reopen the matter for rehearing, where the earlier order had been passed on the basis of a concession and the error claimed was not arithmetical.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier order proceeded on the conceded position that the adjudicating Deputy Commissioner lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. The order was therefore treated as a consent order. In such a situation, the Tribunal relied on the settled principle that rectification cannot be converted into a recall or rehearing jurisdiction, and that only arithmetical mistakes can be corrected in such proceedings.

Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable for recalling the order or for rehearing the appeal, and it was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order remained undisturbed, and the matter was left to be re-adjudicated by the Commissioner after giving an opportunity of hearing.

---