IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2010 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 714 of 2005(P) ------------------------------ (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD. 22/03/2005 IN O.P. NO. 10852/2002 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT) ............. REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- G. DEVAKI, PROPRIETRESS, LAKSHMI VILASAM TILE WORKS, THURUTHU, ALUVA. BY ADV. MR.C.S.MANU. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, ALUVA. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. SANDESH RAJA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.714 of 2005 in O.P. No. 10852 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010 O R D E R It is an application for review of my judgment dated 22.03.2005 which reads as under: “The employer is a gratuity case is the petitioner herein. The Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has computed the gratuity amount payable by the petitioner to the additional third respondent and ten other workers. However, the petitioner did not pay the same as directed by the Controlling Authority. Therefore revenue recovery proceedings were initiated as per Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner is challenging the same. 2. The only contention urged before me by the petitioner is that while issuing Exts.P1 and P2 respondents 1 and 2 have calculated interest at compound rate and not at the simple rate as provided under Section 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This contention is refuted by the counsel for the additional third respondent citing Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. Under Section 7(3A), the interest payable is simple interest, but that is applicable only if the employer pays the gratuity amount without interruption of the Controlling Authority or if the Controlling Authority so directs. However, that benefit is available to the employer only if he pays the gratuity amount at least as per the directions of the Controlling Authority. If the employer fails to pay the gratuity amount even as directed by the Controlling Authority and the Controlling Authority resorts to revenue recovery proceedings for recovery of the gratuity amount, Section 8 applies, which specifically says that the Collector shall recover the gratuity amount together with compound interest thereon. In the circumstances, the only ground taken by the petitioner to challenge the revenue recovery proceedings is R.P. No.714 of 2005 in O.P. No. 10852 of 2002 -2- without any merit whatsoever and, therefore, the Original Petition is liable to be dismissed. I do so. However, I make no order as to costs.” Petitioner now submits that some other amounts have been included in Ext.P1 which ought not to have been so included. That was not a ground raised at the time arguments in the original petition as is evidenced from the judgment. I also note that although this review petition was filed on 10.08.2005 for 4 ½ years, the petitioner did not care to bring the same up for admission. As such I do not find any ground to review the judgment. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/