IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2007 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1928 RP.No. 194 of 2007(N) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.32892/2006 DATED 14/12/2006. .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN INSECTICIDES LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, SCOPE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, HIL, UDYOGAMANDAL-683 501. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- MARY V.V. (EX.B.NO.1096, ACCOUNTANT SPECIAL GRADE HIL), RESIDING AT `AMBAT', MANKUZHY ROAD, EDAPPALLY TOLL, KOCHI-682 024. BY ADV. SRI.ANTONY M.AMBAT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P. NO: 194 OF 2007 IN WP(C)No. 32892 OF 2006 ----------------------------- Dated this the 13th March, 2007. O R D E R The review petitioners are the respondents in W.P(C) 32892/2006. Review is sought for in respect of that portion of the judgment where this Court held that the writ petitioner will be entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity at the statutory rate. It is contended by the review petitioners that the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity was not a matter of serious discussion at the final hearing of the writ petition as it was agreed by both parties that the writ petition can be disposed of following the observations, findings and reliefs granted as per Ext.P3 judgment to the petitioner therein who is the first respondent in Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench. The review petitioners have no quarrel with that part of the judgment by which they are directed to disburse the differential amount of gratuity and other admissible terminal benefits based on the revised pay. 2. It is contended by the counsel for the review petitioners that the writ petitioner is not entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity at the statutory rate R.P 194/2007 in WPC 32892/2006 2 for reasons stated in the review petition. Counsel for the writ petitioner submits that he will be able to satisfy this Court that the writ petitioner is entitled for interest on the amount of gratuity. 3. Since the question of interest was not a matter for detailed debate at the time of hearing of the writ petition, and as rightly submitted by the counsel for the review petitioners the writ petition was disposed of on the agreement that the petitioners can be granted the same relief as were granted to the first respondent in Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench, I think the right course will be to leave open the question of the entitlement of the petitioner for interest on gratuity, to be decided in appropriate proceedings. It is seen that the respondent in the writ appeal was not granted, as per Ext.P4 judgment, interest on gratuity. Accordingly, I leave open the question of the entitlement of the respondent herein (the writ petitioner) for interest on gratuity. The following sentence, namely, "the petitioner will be entitled to interest on the amount of gratuity at the statutory rate" shall stand deleted from the judgment under review, for reasons stated above. The dispute relating to claim interest can be settled by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and if the petitioner approaches that R.P 194/2007 in WPC 32892/2006 3 authority, the same shall be considered on merits and settled in that forum. Review petition is disposed of accordingly. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj