IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1024 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.25407/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- SAJEEV, S/O. SRINIVASAN, AGED 37, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MALA, PALLIPURAMDESOM, POYYA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER,THRISSUR. 3. TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, REPRESENTED BY WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR, THRISSUR. GOVT PLEADER SHRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR SHRI.RENIL ANTO, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No.1024/2008 in W.P(C).No.25407/2008 ================== Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition seeking two reliefs. One is regarding return of advance deposit of wages of employees as also return of excess amounts paid towards contributions under the Kerala Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act. I disposed of the writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to pass final determination orders in respect of the contributions under the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Act within three months. However, at that time by oversight the petitioner failed to press for the other relief. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the review petition seeking the relief in respect of other prayer also. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Toddy Workers' Welfare Fund Board. 3. After hearing, I am satisfied that the omission on the part of the petitioner to mention the second relief was not deliberate, but by oversight. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to consider that question also by reviewing my judgment. 2 Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed, the judgment dated 25.8.2008 in W.P(C).No.25407/2008 is recalled, the writ petition is heard afresh and a separate judgment is passed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge