IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 540 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1006/2006 Dated 13/06/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- THANKAPPAN NAIR, S/O.S.NARAYANAN NAIR, RADHAMANDHIRAM, MANAYILKULANGARA, KOLLAM-12. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE LABOUR SECRETARY, MAZDOOR BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (F & A), THAMILNADU AND PONDICHERRY STATES 20, ROYALPETTAH HIGH ROAD, MADRAS. 3. THE WELFARE AND PERSONAL OFFICER, SPNCER & CO.LTD. SPENCER PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, 769, ANNA SALAI, MADRAS. 4. KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,(SR.) SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.540/2008 in W.A.No.1006/2006 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1006/2006. The Writ Appeal itself arose out of the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.24100/2005. The contention of the petitioner was that he is entitled to annual rests on the amount lying in the Provident Fund account and not simple interest at 12%. This point was considered by the learned Single Judge and held that the company was closed in April 1968. Therefore, the account might have closed on that day. So, the calculation of interest till then is governed by clause 6 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and thereafter the interest is payable only at 12%. Therefore, the learned Single Judge only held that so long as the account remained current, the calculation of interest is to be made as per the provisions of the Scheme and once the account is closed, thereafter only simple interest is to be paid. The Division Bench also agreed with this view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find there is any error apparent on the face of the records and in a review, RP 540/2008 -2- we cannot re-hear the appeal. If the appellant thinks that a different view is possible on the interpretation placed by this court, his remedy is only to file an appeal. In the result, the Review Petition is dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/