[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
A. Chandrakumaran Nair vs The Employees Provident Fund ... on 9 January, 2026
RP NO.1181/2025 1
2026:KER:1218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 19TH POUSHA, 1947
RP NO.1181 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.07.2025 IN WA
NO.852 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 67:
1 A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT SREEMANGALAM, FRIENDS LANE,
MAVELIPURAM SECTOR 4, KAKKANAD;
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030
2 A. MUHAMMAD SHABEER
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.M.ABDUL RAHIM,
RESIDING AT FIRDOUS', P.J.ANTONY GROUND ROAD;
PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682012
3 BINI T.I
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O.LATE.T.P.ITTAN,
RESIDING AT KAVANAKKUDY(H), IRINGOLE P.O,
PERUMBAVOOR, PIN - 683545
4 JESSY PAUL
AGED 57 YEARS
D/O. LATE K.D JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT KUNDUKULANGARA HOUSE, UNITY STREET,
ATHEKKAD ROAD, BEHIND TRINITY CONVENT,
KOLAZHY P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680010
5 DINESH KUMAR .C
AGED 53 YEARS
RP NO.1181/2025 2
2026:KER:1218
S/O.APPU NAIR, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM,
KARUKUTTY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683576
6 RAJENDRAN .T
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.THANKAPPAN ACHARY,
RESIDING AT THANAL, EROOR NORTH P.O,
THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682306
7 JACOB T. ABRAHAM
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. T.C ABRAHAM,
RESIDING AT THATTACKAT, GOLDEN NAGAR,
THOTTAKATTUKARA P.O, ALUVA, PIN - 683108
8 T.R. GOPALAKRISHNA
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O T. RADHAKRISHNA,
RESIDING AT AMRA116, NEAR AIRMEN SELECTION
CENTER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
9 TOMY DEVIS
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.P.V.DEVASSY,
RESIDING AT PADAYATTI HOUSE, NEAR POST OFFICE,
KANJOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683575
10 SATHEESH KUMAR R. PAI
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.N V RAJAGOPAL,
RESIDING AT NINDASTALATH HOUSE,
KUZHUPILLY, AYYAMPILLY P O, PIN - 682501
11 ABDUL ZALAM M.K
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED,
RESIDING AT MADATHADTTU HOUSE,
ASSISSI LANE,ALUVA, PIN - 683101
12 USHA DEVI T.P
AGED 50 YEARS
D/O.G.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI,
RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O,
CHERTHALA, PIN - 688523
RP NO.1181/2025 3
2026:KER:1218
13 ABRAHAM JOSEPH
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.O.A JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT OLESSERIL HOUSE, THONIYIL LANE,
THOTTAKKATTUKARA P.O ALUVA, PIN - 683108
14 SIVADASAN HARIDASAN
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.K.G. HARIDASAN,
RESIDING AT AMBAKATE HOUSE,
VELUR.P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680601
15 MANU .G
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. K. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
RESIDING AT MANGALATH PUTHANVEEDU,
THRIKKANNAMANGAL, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691506
16 LENNY SEBASTIAN
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. P.J. SEBASTIAN,
RESIDING AT PARACKAL HOUSE 93,
PARACKAL HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR;
KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682020
17 BINOJ R
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.RAJAN C.D, RESIDING AT AMBILI NIVAS,
ANNAMANADA P.O, ANNAMANADA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680741
18 SREEJITH T K
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. T.K KUMARAN, RESIDING AT THOPPIL HOUSE,
VENGOOR, KIDANGOOR P.O, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
19 PAUL .A. BIJOY
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. M P ANTONY,
RESIDING AT MANJALY HOUSE, AYROOR P.O,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683579
20 GIRISH .T
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. PARAMESWARAN .T,
RP NO.1181/2025 4
2026:KER:1218
RESIDING AT 108/POORNA, TB NAGAR;
TB ROAD, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL,
ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
21 BILU VARGHESE
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. VARGHESE PAUL, RESIDING AT ARACKAL,
CHUNDAKKUZHY P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683546
22 SINDHU SANTHOSH
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O. K. PRABHAKARAN,
RESIDING AT PADMALAYAM, FLAT NO. 3 D;
MONASTRY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
23 MANOJ .P. JOSEPH
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.P.J. JOSEPH, SENIOR RESIDING AT PLANKALA
HOUSE, BAPUJI ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O,
PIN - 686661
24 DEEPOO .S
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.K.N. SAHADEVAN, RESIDING AT 205,
NATIONAL AVENUE, MANIMALA CROSS ROAD,
EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
25 SOJAN KOSHY
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.K.K.KOSHY, RESIDING AT KARIMPUMKALAYIL HOUSE,
MANHATTAN, LAGUNA VILLA, MAROTTICHODU, MATTOOR,
KERALA, PIN - 683574
26 P.J. TONY
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. THARIYATH JOHN, RESIDING AT PATHADAN HOUSE,
EN-125, EAST NAGAR ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
27 RAJUMON P.C
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. P.K. CHERIAN,
RESIDING AT PYNADATH HOUSE, ONNAM MILE,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DT, PIN - 683542
RP NO.1181/2025 5
2026:KER:1218
28 ABRAHAM ZACHARIAH
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. M.A ZACHARIAH, RESIDING AT MADAVILAYIL (H),
YMCA ROAD, ATHANI P.O, ERNAKULAM DT, PIN - 683585
29 SHAJI G.K
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. G. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.4C,
CHERUB SKY VILLAS, METRO GARDEN,
THAIKKATTUKARA P.O, PIN - 683106
30 PAUL .J. KOCHERIL
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. K.P.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT KOCHERIL HOUSE,
KUMARAPURAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DT., PIN - 683565
31 PAVITHRAN .V.P
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE. P. NARAYANA PODUVAL,
RESIDING AT SREELOKAM, PUTHANTHODU,
CHENGAMANAD. P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578
32 DOMINIC FERNANDEZ
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. LATE JOSEPH FERNANDEZ,
RESIDING AT "IMMACULATE" (MALIEKAL),
POPULAR ROAD,VADUTHALA, COCHIN, PIN - 682023
33 JYOTHI .N
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. I.V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, RESIDING AT 3E,
SKYLINE GATEWAY APARTMENTS, PATHADIPALAM,
CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682033
34 ANIL KUMAR P.N
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. P.S. NARAYANAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL, ASSAN LANE;
EDAYAPPURAM ROAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
35 MATHACHAN P.J
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.P.V.JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT PADAYATTY, KANJOOR, (NEAR CHANGAL
BRIDGE), THURAVUMKARA P.O, PIN - 683575
RP NO.1181/2025 6
2026:KER:1218
36 SAJITH .D
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.T.A. DIVAKARAN,
RESIDING AT THARANILATH HOUSE,
MATTOOR POST, KALADY, PIN - 683574
37 JEEVANAND K. JAMES
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE JAMES, RESIDING AT GREEN COTTAGE,
SOUTH PARAVUR PO, KOCHI, PIN - 682307
38 SKARIA D. PARACKA
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.P.S.DAVIS, RESIDING AT PARACKA HOUSE,
KANJOOR P.O, KALADY VIA, PIN - 683575
39 MINI JACOB
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O. K.J.JACOB, RESIDING AT KACHIRAMATTAM (H),
NETHAJI ROAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
40 KAMALESH PATEL
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. SALIK RAM PATEL, RESIDING AT FLAT NO: 202,
SIVA APARTMENTS, HAPPY VILLA, HAPPY NAGAR,
KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN - 682037
41 SANKAR .V
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.LATE. S. VENKITAKRISHNAN,
RESIDING AT SANKAR NIVAS, NETTAIKKODATH ROAD
PALARIVATTOM P.O; ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
42 CECIL AUGUSTINE P.A
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.P.N. ALOYSIUS,
RESIDING AT PADAMATTUMMAL HOUSE, PUTHENTHODU,
CANAL ROAD, CHENGAMANAD P.O, PIN - 683578
43 K.P. THANKACHAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. K.P. PAULOSE,
RESIDING AT KUTTAPPILLIL HOUSE,
KADAMATTAM P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682311
RP NO.1181/2025 7
2026:KER:1218
44 AJIT KUMAR C.V
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. C.V.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT CHIRAMMAL HOUSE,
NETAJI ROAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683101
45 BINDU P. DAS
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.SUNNY JOSEPH MATTATHIL,
RESIDING AT BELLE VISTA, VETTIKKATT PARAMBU ROAD,
(OFF V.P MARAKAR ROAD), EDAPPALLY P.O,
EDAPPALLY TOLL, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
46 SANTHOSH .S
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.M.R.SAHADEVAN,
RESIDING AT MAPPILASSERY VELIYIL,
KANICHUKULANGARA P.O. CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688582
47 MANOJ KUMAR .G
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O P GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER,
RESIDING AT DEVICHAITHANYAM,
NEAR KUZHIKKATTU TEMPLE, NEAR NGO FLATS,
THRIKKAKKARA P.O, PIN - 682021
48 INDIRA P.K
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O. P.V. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VELIYATH (H),
VATTAPARAMBU P O, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683579
49 M. SURESH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. A. BALAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SREYAS,
THURUTHISSERY, KARIYAD, MEKAD P O,
ANGAMAL, PIN - 683589
50 PAULOSE P.I
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. K. ITTOOP,
RESIDING AT ALUKKA PUTHUSSERY,
THURAVOOR P.O, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683572
51 K.M. JAYACHANDRAN
AGED 59 YEARS
RP NO.1181/2025 8
2026:KER:1218
S/O. LATE. K.MUKUNDAN,
RESIDING AT 'VAISHNAVAM', PALAKKAPARAMBU,
HMT COLONY P O, KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683503
52 GEORGE JOSE
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. LATE. V.I. GEORGE,
RESIDING AT MANAKKATTUSHERIL, EDAVAKODE,
SREEKARIYAM P O, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695017
53 B.MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT ANJANAM(H), MEKAD P.O,
THURUTHISSERY, ANGAMALY, PIN - 683589
54 MOHANDAS M.G
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM,
HMT P.O, KALAMASSERY, PIN - 683503
55 WILSON .K. ABRAHAM
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE ABRAHAM,
RESIDING AT KUPPAKKATTIL HOUSE,
MEMUGHOM, MANEED P.O, PIRAVOM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686664
56 AJAYAKUMAR A.P
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O. K. PRABHAKARAN,
RESIDING AT OMKARAM (H), POICKATTUSSERY,
CHENGAMANADU.PO, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683578
57 ALEX C.T
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS C.A,
RESIDING AT CHOORAKULAM (H), PARAYIL NAGAR,
EAST MEKKAD, MEKKAD P.O, NEDUMBASSERY,
ALUVA, PIN - 683589
58 CINI CHACKO .M
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. M.J. CHACKO,
RP NO.1181/2025 9
2026:KER:1218
RESIDING AT GRACE VILLA, KALLADAYIL LANE,
EACHAMUKKU, CSEZ.P.O, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682037
59 KARUNA .P
AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. P.K. KARUNAKARAN,
RESIDING AT AMBADY HOUSE, DESOM-PURAYAR ROAD,
DESOM P O, ALUVA, PIN - 683102
60 RAJU .S.K
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. B. SABU,
RESIDING AT NEERANJANAM, CRA: 66,
CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA, PIN - 683578
61 KHANNA ANTONY
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.A.L.ANTONY,
RESIDING AT ARIMBUR HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU,
THRISSUR EAST P O, PIN - 680005
62 GINCY .M. PAUL
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.M V KURIAKOSE,
RESIDING AT MANGALAKADAN HOUSE, MOONAMPARAMBU,
AZHAKAM P O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683577
63 LATHA K.V
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.SHADANANDAN V.S,
RESIDING AT HARITHAM, KNRA 95,
NORTH PARAVUR P.O, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683513
64 SREEKALA P.P
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. PRAKASAN K V,
RESIDING AT SOPANAM, MAIKAD P.O, KARIYAD,
THIRUVILAMKUNNU, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683589
65 SAJI P.I
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.P.A.ITTOOP,
RESIDING AT PYNADATH (H), MAIKAVE,
VAPPALASSERY P O, ANGAMALY (VIA), PIN - 683572
RP NO.1181/2025 10
2026:KER:1218
66 JESSY E.V.
AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.E.C.VAREED,
RESIDING AT KOOTTUNGAL (H), KONGOTHRA,
MAIKKADU P O, ATHANI, PIN - 683589
67 R.VENKITESWARAN
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.K.RANGANATHAN (LATE),
RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, (SIVAD COMPOUND) PALA ROAD,
ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN - 686631
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SANJITH
SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENT NO.68:
1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF PROVIDENT COMMISSIONER,
BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, 14,
BHIKAJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110066
2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
3 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER(ACCOUNTS)
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
4 THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD
KOCHI AIRPORT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PIN - 683111
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, R1 TO R3
SRI.ABEL TOM BENNY, R4
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.10.2025, THE COURT ON 09.01.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
RP NO.1181/2025 11
2026:KER:1218
ORDER
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment
dated 21.07.2025 in W.A.No.852 of 2022. Review Petitioners were
respondents 1 to 67 in the said Writ Appeal.
2. The Writ Appeal was filed by respondents 1 to 3
challenging the judgment dated 28.03.2022 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.7801 of 2020 inter alia directing respondents 1
to 3 to encash the DD deposited by the 4th respondent towards
alleged deficiency and arrears and thereafter to issue a letter for
details of the alleged arrears by providing record of the employees
and other registers maintained in the office, including the Employees
Provident Fund numbers assigned to the employees. It was also
directed that after scrutiny of the said documents, if any further
deficiency is found, the EPFO shall send the demand after
undertaking the exercise of computation and shall also take action
as provided under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident
2026:KER:1218
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act).
3. This Court, had vide the judgment sought to be reviewed,
allowed the Writ Appeal inter alia holding that affecting retrospective
contributions and seeking payment on the said basis has the
propensity to burden the EPFO and to unsettle its actuarial basis. It
was held that determination of the moneys due from the employer
under Section 7A and issuance of an order calling upon the
employer after quantification is a sine qua non for receiving
deficiency or arrears from the employer. It was thus concluded that
in the total absence of legal norms that permit retrospective
coverage, the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the CIAL
to produce a DD for the alleged deficiency of contribution for the
period 1995 to 2003 and in directing the appellants EPFO to encash
the said DD and undertake the computation as envisaged under the
EPF Act.
4. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioners,
contending that the judgment had errors apparent on the face of the
record and that crucial facts and statutory norms had been
overlooked while rendering the same.
5. Heard Sri.R.Sanjith, Advocate for the Review Petitioners,
2026:KER:1218
Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and
Sri.Benny P.Thomas, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri.Abel Tom
Benny, Advocate for respondent No.4.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
judgment sought to be reviewed abounds with errors apparent on
the face of the record. The principal error pointed out is that the
judgment proceeds as if all the Review Petitioners had
superannuated and that they 'were' the employees of CIAL. The said
conclusion arrived at, it is submitted, is factually incorrect since only
a few of the Review Petitioners have retired, and a substantial
number of them are still continuing in service. Reliance is placed on
the judgments in Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Mazdoor Federation
and others v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others
[(1992) 2 SCC 723]; Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd. v. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner [2020 (3) KLT 79], Manager,
Wallardie Estate, Idukki v. Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, Kottayam and another [2020 (3) KHC 194] and
the judgment dated 24.02.2025 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1932 of
2025, and it is contended that the dictum laid down therein that with
respect to PF contribution and remittance of any shortfall, it is
2026:KER:1218
immaterial whether the beneficiary of such remittance/recovery is
retired or in service. Pointing to the dictum in Jose V. Thomas &
others v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation [2024 SCC
Online Ker 7648], it is contended that to the extent the dictum laid
down therein had not been followed, the judgment sought to be
reviewed is erroneous. It is submitted that the reliance placed on
the dictum in Pawan Hans Ltd. and others v. Aviation
Karmachari Sanghatana and others [2020 (13) SCC 506] in the
judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous since no 'dictum' as
relied on therein had been laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
said case. The use of the term 'dictum' while referring to the findings
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Hans Ltd. (supra) it is
submitted, is incorrect since the quote reproduced was only an
interim order of the Supreme Court and not a judgment. Hence, it
could not have been termed as a 'dictum' laid down by the Supreme
Court. The mention in paragraph 3 of the judgment sought to be
reviewed, that the attempt of Review Petitioners 1 to 67 was to
obtain a pension, is incorrect, as it was the Employees Provident
Fund that was sought and not pension.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3
2026:KER:1218
submitted that the factual error pointed out regarding all the
employees not being retired and a few alone have been retired does
not in any way affect or alter the reasoning stated for allowing the
Writ Appeal. The reference in the judgment to the contention in the
counter affidavit of the EPFO that the attempt of Review Petitioners
1 to 67 was to obtain a pension, is correct, as it was the pension that
follows from being a member of the fund that was aimed at, and it
was not the Employees Provident Fund alone that was sought. No
error had been committed by the court while stating the said
contention of the EPFO as taken in the counter-affidavit. The
learned counsel submitted that all other contentions put forth in the
Review Petition concerned the correctness of the findings and
reasoning in the judgment and no error apparent on the face of the
record is revealed. The attempt is only to reagitate the matter on
merits, and no scope for a review is made out. The learned counsel
thus prayed for the dismissal of the Review Petition.
8. On behalf of the 4th respondent, the Senior Advocate made
submissions in line with those made on behalf of the Review
Petitioners.
9. We have heard both sides in detail and have considered
2026:KER:1218
the contentions put forth. It is to be noted that the circumstances in
which the review jurisdiction is to be exercised are no longer res
integra. Section 114 of the CPC, which is the substantive provision,
deals with the scope of review and states as follows:
"Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering
himself aggrieved: (a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal
has been preferred; (b) by a decree or order from which
no appeal is allowed by this Code; or (c) by a decision on
a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a
review of judgment to the court which passed the decree
or made the order, and the court may make such order
thereon as it thinks fit.
10. The grounds available for filing a review application
against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in
the following words:
"1. Application for review of judgment -
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed,
but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed,
or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the decree was passed
or order made, or on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for any other
sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review
of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made
2026:KER:1218
the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order
may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the
pendency of an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and
the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of
law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for
the review of such judgment.]
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in a catena of binding
precedents, held that unless an error apparent on the face of the
record is revealed, a review cannot be maintained. In Col. Avtar
Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and others reported in [1980
Supp SCC 562], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a review
of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that
the material error which is manifest on the face of the order would
result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The
observations made are as follows:
"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved
to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the
party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot
review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow
Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in
(1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed :
2026:KER:1218
"A review of a judgment is a serious step and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a
glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave
error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The
present stage is not a virgin ground but review
of an earlier order which has the normal feature
of finality." (emphasis added)
12. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and Others
reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 715], stating that an error that is not
selfevident and the one that has to be detected by the process of
reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of
the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"7. It is well settled that review proceedings
have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.6 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.
Govt. of A.P.1 reported in (1964) 5 SCR 174 , this Court
opined:
'What, however, we are now concerned with is
whether the statement in the order of
September 1959 that the case did not involve
any substantial question of law is an 'error
apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that
on the earlier occasion the Court held on an
identical state of facts that a substantial
question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be
erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was
wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error
apparent on the face of the record', for there is a
distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a
mere erroneous decision and a decision which
could be characterized as vitiated by 'error
apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in
2026:KER:1218
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error.'
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting
with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389,
this Court once again held that review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may
be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of 6
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise
of this jurisdiction under Order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and
corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in
disguise" [emphasis added]
13. The error referred to under the Rule must be apparent on
the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. It
is also settled law that in the exercise of review jurisdiction, the
Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different
conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala
State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower
Ltd. and others reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 651], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows:
"10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to
2026:KER:1218
reappreciate the evidence and reach a different
conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for
the Board at best sought to impress us that the
correspondence exchanged between the parties did not
support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are
afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be
advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of
evidence on record is fully within the domain of the
appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence
produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a
conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review
petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent
on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto.
It has not been contended before us that there is any error
apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review
petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of
evidence would amount to converting a review petition into
an appeal in disguise." (emphasis added)
14. Review Petition cannot thus be used as a pretext to reiterate
previously raised and rejected arguments. A review cannot be an
attempt to reopen the conclusions reached in a judgment. The
scope of review should not be conflated with appellate jurisdiction,
by which a superior court can rectify errors committed by a
subordinate court. This aspect has been elucidated in Jain Studios
Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in [(2006) 5 SCC
501], wherein it was held thus:
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits
is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right
in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same
relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the
main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer
had been refused, no review petition would lie which would
2026:KER:1218
convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law
that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate
power which enables a superior court to correct all errors
committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an
original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument
is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The
power of review can be exercised with extreme care,
caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the
applicant herein had been made at the time when the
arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same
relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a
review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the
nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and
unwarranted and cannot be granted." (emphasis added)
15. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in
[(2013) 8 SCC 320], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after a detailed
discussion on related precedents, observed that review proceedings
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII
Rule 1, CPC. If the point sought to be raised in the review
application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are
not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an
alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review
jurisdiction were succinctly summarised in the said case as below:
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him;
2026:KER:1218
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been
interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112),
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule".
The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India
v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors reported in
(2013) 8 SCC 337,
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to
be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived."
16. In Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others v.
Vinod Kumar Rawat and others reported in [(2020) SCC Online
2026:KER:1218
SC 896], citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and
ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay
any conditions precedent in exercising the power of review; and nor
does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to
review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court
only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said
power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can
appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of
review.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bagirathi
Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464]
has held that to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the
order suffers from an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which
is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be
reviewed merely because it is erroneous.
18. Having thus reminded ourselves of the scope of review
jurisdiction, we proceed to consider the contentions put forth.
19. The principal contention put forth by the petitioners is that
2026:KER:1218
the reference in the judgment that Review Petitioners 1 to 67 have
already superannuated is factually incorrect insofar as only 9 among
them had superannuated, while filing the appeal, and 46 of them
were in service. It is thus contended that this Court had been misled
as regards facts and this error goes to the very root of the reasoning
and the conclusion in the Writ Appeal to the detriment of the Review
Petitioners.
20. We note as pointed out by the learned counsel for the
Review Petitioners, that the statement that all the Review Petitioners
1 to 67 had retired from service, in the judgment sought to be
reviewed, is indeed factually incorrect. References in the judgment
leading to such a conclusion that all Review Petitioners had retired
are thus fit to be corrected. However, the said error, we note, does
not impact the reasoning or conclusion arrived at in the judgment
based on which the Writ Appeal was allowed. The judgment of the
learned Single Judge was set aside, and the Writ Appeal allowed,
specifically noting the other material circumstances as well as
considering the larger legal questions involved. The factual error
pointed out , ie., not all of the employees had retired, does not have
the effect on the reason for the decision or to render a recall of the
2026:KER:1218
entire judgment as sought for by the Review Petitioners. The
reasoning of the judgment, as elaborated in paras 9 to 12 thereof, is
independently valid and stands on its own as no error apparent on
the face of the record has been pointed out with respect to such
reasoning or conclusions.
21. The next contention put forth by the petitioners is that the
finding in the judgment that EPF Act does not provide or
contemplate any retrospective contributions to the provident fund or
the pension fund, is erroneous and contrary to statutory provisions
and precedents. To buttress the said contentions, reliance is placed
on the 'EPF joining application form' and upon the statement therein
which reads as "Incorporate only if retrospective coverage is
desired." Reliance is also seen to be placed on precedents in this
respect and it has been contended that the issue of retrospective
contribution has been specifically addressed therein. The said
contentions in the Review Petition, in effect challenges the
correctness of the findings arrived at in para 12 of the judgment,
wherein it has been discussed and specifically concluded that the
purported reliance placed on the statement in EPF joining
application is bound to fail for the reasons elaborated therein. It is
2026:KER:1218
trite from the precedents discussed above, that error, if any, in the
judgment or an alternate point of view based on facts, if sought to be
challenged, ought to be raised in an appeal and cannot lead to the
filing of a review. The said ground for review hence cannot be
accepted.
22. The next ground on which the review has been sought
relates to the conclusions in para 9 and para 10 of the judgment
regarding retrospective contribution. It is contended that the
judgment had overlooked the fact that CIAL (Employer) had paid a
sum of Rs.78.14 lakhs as against the employers contribution
shortfall of Rs.13.24 lakhs and hence the claim of the EPFO
regarding actuarial benefit does not hold water. It is further
contended in review that the findings of the court are in stark
contradiction to the objective of the scheme of the EPF Act as well
as contrary to the various binding decisions in this regard. In addition
to the fact that the above contention cannot be a basis to sustain a
Review Petition, the judgment sought to be reviewed had concluded
with detailed reasoning that the employer cannot contribute
retrospectively to the pension fund more than statutory limits just to
derive benefits which were not available to the members when the
2026:KER:1218
contribution was limited to statutory wages. As laid down in the
precedents discussed above, the correctness of the said finding may
be open to appeal and no review can be maintained to challenge the
correctness.
23. Review is also sought, stating that this Court ought to
have at least fixed a time to prevent further delay and injustice to the
Review Petitioners, as the interest of justice required the same. It is
also contended that since CIAL had remitted the defaulted short fall
amount towards the provident fund, after a lot of office procedures
and with approval of the board, and if the amount deposited by CIAL
is returned, then it is doubtful whether the amount would be paid
back if and when the said amount becomes payable to the PF
amount. The above reasons also do not constitute a ground on
which a review could be maintained and it is trite that a review
sought on such reasons cannot be sustained.
24. Thus on perusal of the record and in the light of the
judgments passed in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal (supra), other
than those mentioned above, no error apparent on the face of the
record warranting recalling of the judgment in the Writ Appeal has
been pointed out or revealed. The grounds raised in the Review
2026:KER:1218
Petition predominantly seek to re-appreciate the contentions and to
arrive at a different conclusion than the one already arrived at. Even
if two views are possible in a matter this Court cannot, in review,
engage in such re appreciation as sought for.
In view of the above, the prayer for recalling the judgment is
declined. The judgment dated 21.07.2025 in W.A.No.852 of 2022
shall stand modified to the limited extent of correcting the references
therein that all the Review Petitioners (Respondents 1 to 67 in the
W.A.) have already superannuated and have received the
emoluments that follow without demur. The statement in paras 2 and
9 to the said extent shall specifically stand modified, and the latter
would read as follows:
"......Further few among the respondents 1 to 67 have already
superannuated and have received the due emoluments.
Except to the above extent, no correction is warranted in the
judgment sought to be reviewed. All other contentions raised in the
Review Petition being mere reiteration of the earlier contentions, are
unsustainable in a Review Petition. The prayer for recalling the
judgment dated 21.07.2025 in Writ Appeal No.852 of 2022 is
2026:KER:1218
declined and the Review Petition is disposed of modifying the said
judgment to the limited extent mentioned above.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
