IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 9TH OCTOBER 2009 / 17TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 902 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27527/2007 Dated 08/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS IN W.P.C ------------------------------------------ 1. ANTHONY CHALISSERY, CHALISSERY HOUSE, KURINJAKKAL LANE, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR. 2. C.M.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.C.K.MATHAI, CHOONDAL HOUSE, P.O.CHOONDAL, TRICHUR DIST. 3. K.S.PREMKUMAR, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, P.O.KOLAZHY, NEAR KOTTARAM TEMPLE, TRICHUR DIST. 4. R.KRISHNAN, S/O.RAMAN, MULANTHRODE HOUSE, PARUVASSERI P.O., KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD DIST. 5. P.SADANANDAN, S/O.C.KESAVAN NAIR, PULIYAKODE HOUSE, KANNAMBRA P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. 6. T.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, "ASWATHI" (KOTHANEATH), R.MANGALAM, KANNAMBRA P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. 7. K.BALAN, THOTTINGAL HOUSE, AYAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD. 8. V.H.MOHAMMED MOIDEEN, "MUHABATH", KARIYAKUNNU, PUTHUCODE P.O., PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RP.902/09 RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC --------------------------------- 1. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, TRICHUR. 2. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KSEB, VYDUTHY BHAVAN, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.S.SUJIN FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ``````````````````````````````````` R.P. No. 902 OF 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 27527 of 2007 B ``````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of October, 2009 O R D E R Joseph, J. Petitioners seek review of Annexure-A1 judgment. By Annexure-A1 judgment dated 08-01-2008, this Court had allowed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners and directed the respondent Board to pay the balance amount of gratuity to the petitioners, after computing the same under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the Court's order. Due to non-compliance of Annexure-A1, the petitioners filed a contempt proceedings, which culminated in Annexure-A2 judgment. We note that in Annexure-A2 judgment, taking note of the judgment in Contempt Case (C) No.937 of 2008, the contempt application came to be closed for the time being. It is further ordered that once the S.L.P. is disposed of in the connected matter by the RP.902/09 : 2 : Apex Court, the petitioners, if so advised, can move this Court again. The petitioners essentially rely on Annexure-A3 judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.883 of 2009 dated 20-07-2009. Therein, the Division Bench, taking note of another judgment in W.A.No.1062 of 2003, ordered that if the petitioner therein could not find any two serving employees to stand as sureties for releasing the additional gratuity amount, it shall be released to him, after the disposal of the matter by the Apex Court with 10% interest from the date of his retirement. 2. The petitioners seek review of Annexure-A1 judgment on the basis of Annexure-A3 judgment. 3. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the Board Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan. Learned senior counsel would point out that the review itself is not maintainable. 4. We notice that Annexure-A1 judgment is rendered in January 2008 and therein this Court directed payment within three months. The petitioners, accepting the said judgment, filed an application for initiating proceedings in RP.902/09 : 3 : contempt case. We have already noticed the judgment. We do not think the petitioners can be permitted to seek to review Annexure-A1 judgment on the basis of the subsequent judgment, namely Annexure-A3, which is passed in July 2009. Accordingly, without prejudice to any other remedy the petitioners have against Annexure-A1 judgment, the Review Petition is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE) aks