IMPORTANT POINT
A review can only be granted based on a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and dissatisfaction with the outcome of the order is not a valid ground for review.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Z. Mukit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 & 3 of CPC, 1908 against the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Court in MFA No. 14/2022.

3. The factual matrix leading to the present review application is that the respondents as claimants filed a claim case before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act(Employees Compensation Act), Dhubri (herein after referred as E.C. Act) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- in E.C. Case No. 12/2011. In the claim petition, the claimants alleged that on 30.10.2010 at about 05:00 p.m., their husband/son, namely Mahibul Hoque, while working with an electric machine to dress the marble of a floor in the building constructed by the present petitioner, had died due to electric shock. The claimants further alleged that the builder(the present petitioner) on coming to know about the accident had paid Rs.50,000/- by two account payee cheques to the claimants and had promised to pay a further sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation to them. But the petitioner failed to pay the said amount. Thereafter, a pleader's notice under section 10 of E.C. Act was sent to the present petitioner by registered post. As the petitioner had failed to comply with the said notice, the claimants had to file the claim case before the Commissioner claiming compensation as aforesaid.

4. The petitioner contested the case by filing written statement wherein the petitioner denied the claim made by the claimants. In the written statement, the petitioner contended that he was not the owner of the building but the builder only for the construction at Janpath. The deceased was not employed by them but was engaged by the contractor, namely one Abdul Khaleque who was not made a party to the case for which the case was bad for non-joinder of necessary party.

5. It was further contented in the written statement that on 21.10.2010, the claimant has come to a compromise after receiving an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner and to that effect, the claimants had executed a deed of compromise and the money receipt in favor of the petitioner wherein they had undertaken not to make any further claim against the petitioner in the court of law. The said amount of Rs.75,000/-was paid purely on humanitarian ground without admitting any liability under the law. The petitioner in the written statement denied that they had promised to pay Rs.7,50,000/- to the claimants. They had also replied to the pleader’s notice sent by the claimants and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed four numbers of issues and after recording the evidences and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, an amount of Rs.6,64,110/- was awarded in favor of the claimants vide judgment dated 12.11.2021.

7. The petitioner, being highly aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 12.11.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation Act, preferred an appeal before this Court and the said appeal was listed on 18.04.2022 for admission. On the said date, i.e. 18.04.2022, though the matter was heard but this Court neither formulated any substantial question of law nor gave any findings as to whether there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeal as required under the proviso 2 Section 30 of the E.C. Act. It is alleged that on 18.04.2022, this Court, without considering all the evidence on record such as the deposition of the PWs, finally disposed of the matter, directing the petitioner/appellant to pay the awarded compensation after deducting an amount of Rs.50,000/-. As the order dated 18.04.2022 suffers from errors apparent on the face of the records, the petitioner has preferred this review application against the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by this Court in M