The court found that the application for review was made promptly, less than a month after the judgment. The court determined that the applicants had established discovery of new and important evidence—namely, that the claimant continued to receive her salary after dismissal, which was not within the applicants' knowledge at the time of the original hearing. The court rejected the claimant's argument that the employer should have known about the payments, noting that payroll management could be delegated and that the concealment was material. The court held that the order for back pay should be varied, as the claimant had already received her salary for the relevant period. However, the court found no sufficient ground to review the award of six months' salary as compensation for unfair termination. The application was allowed only to the extent of substituting the back pay order, with the rest of the judgment remaining unchanged. Costs of the application were awarded to the applicants.