IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 861 of 2008(J) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23616/2005 Dated 05/06/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7: ----------------------------------------- 1. K.LATHIKAMMA, THAZHATHEKUTTU (SRUTHY) HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O. 2. ANJU.S.NAIR OF -DO- 3. T.S.RENJU OF -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.RAJEEV V.KURUP RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAHITHYA PRAVARTHAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. 2458, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT 1972 ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 5. THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER (CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT,1972 KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... R.P. No.861 of 2008 in W.P.(C) No.23616 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008. ORDER Review Petition is filed for modifying the judgment which authorised the management to adjust amounts if any due from the deceased employee from out of gratuity ordered to be paid to him by the controlling authority. who is the 5th respondent in the R.P. The amount adjusted by the management is Rs.11,778/- which is stated to be an advance given to the deceased employee. I have heard counsel appearing for the review petitioner and counsel appearing for the first respondent. Even though counsel for first respondent submitted that he has no instruction in the matter, I do not think the Review Petition should be kept pending because no instruction on facts are required for the purpose of disposal of the review petition. 2. This court authorised management to make adjustments of any amount due from the deceased. The court while disposing of the W.P. did not consider the nature of claim the management had against the deceased. Therefore, the adjustments authorised under the judgment obviously means amounts admittedly due from the deceased. The legal heirs who are 2 respondents 5 to 7 in the W.P.(C) who filed the review petition, contended that the management had no such case before the 5th respondent who considered the gratuity claim. I find force in this contention because if management raised their claim of dues from the deceased, the same would have been considered by the District Labour Officer at the time of considering the claim petition by review petitioners for grant of gratuity. Therefore, no adjustment is permissible from the gratuity amount and interest thereon ordered to be paid by the 5th respondent. Even though review petitioners have filed a statement stating balance liability with interest as Rs.81,798/-, I do not think there is any need for this court to consider whether interest calculated is correct or not. On the face of it, it is seen from the statement that review petitioners have given credit for payments received periodically and have added interest on the balance amount. It is for the management to consider whether the calculation of interest is correct or not and if it is correct and in terms of the award of the 5th respondent, they should make payment within the time stipulated in the judgment. However, if there is any controversy on the amount of interest charged, I direct the 5th respondent to settle the dispute. I make it clear that if the matter is unnecessarily dragged before the 5th respondent, he should order cost besides actual interest. Therefore, any dispute raised by the 3 management before the 5th respondent should be absolutely bonafide and if he finds otherwise, there will be direction to the 5th respondent to order exemplary cost in favour of the review petitioners. Review Petition is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms