Rectification power is limited to apparent mistakes on the record; broader amendment or recall was not permitted.

Rectification jurisdiction under the Tribunal's statutory power is narrow and distinct from review: only an obvious mistake apparent from the record can be corrected, not reappreciation of evidence, repetition of arguments, or omission to reproduce every submission or document. On the facts, the Tribunal had considered the bulky record and the challenged chart of events formed part of the hearing, so the alleged non-incorporation of submissions and references was not an apparent mistake. The application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting two typographical errors; broader amendment or recall was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's earlier order contained a mistake apparent from the record so as to justify rectification under the statutory rectification power, and whether the order should be amended beyond mere typographical corrections.

Analysis: The rectification jurisdiction was held to be narrow and distinct from review. A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious, discernible error capable of correction on the record itself; it does not extend to reappreciation of the entire material, repetition of arguments, or omission to reproduce every submission or document. The order showed that the Tribunal had considered the bulky record and that the challenged chart of events had been part of the hearing. The alleged non-incorporation of submissions and references did not constitute an apparent mistake. Only two typographical errors in the earlier order were found to require correction.

Conclusion: No substantive mistake apparent from the record was established. The application succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the two typographical errors; the request for broader amendment or recall was rejected.

---