Madras High Court
G.Srinivasan vs Union Of India on 15 April, 2021
Review Application No.31 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJIB BANERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Review Application No.31 of 2021
and
WMP Nos.3776 &3777 of 2021
in
in W.P.No.33725 of 2019
G.Srinivasan ... Applicant/Petitioner
Vs
1.Union of India
Ministry of Labour,
Rep. by Secretary,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
RAFI MARG,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.Ministry of Finance
Rep. by Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
__________
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application No.31 of 2021
3.Chairman, CBDT,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001. ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Review Application under Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order dated
01.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.33725 of 2019 and allow the said
petition as prayed by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Srinivasan
Paty in person
For Respondents : ---
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.)
The review applicant challenges an order dated 01.12.2020 in
W.P.No.33725 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the review
applicant was dismissed.
2. In the said writ petition, the review applicant had challenged
two notifications issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment
and by the Ministry of Finance whereby 29.03.2018 was fixed as the
date of entry into force of amendments to the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972(the Payment of Gratuity Act) and the Income Tax Act
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application No.31 of 2021
1961(the Income Tax Act). The review applicant had prayed for a
declaration that the date of entry into force of such amendments
should be 1st January 2016 instead of 29th March 2018.
3. The writ petition was dismissed primarily on two grounds.
First, that the Income Tax Act provided for exemption as regards
gratuity income by drawing reference to the ceiling prescribed in the
Payment of Gratuity Act. The writ petitioner had challenged the
aforesaid notifications without challenging Section 10(10) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 which linked the exemption limit to the ceiling
limit under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Secondly, that a declaration
cannot be issued for the enforcement of statutory amendments,
which expressly prescribe the date of entry into force, with effect
from a date anterior thereto.
4. The review applicant relies upon a few judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that the order in the writ petition
should be reviewed. In specific, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in D.S.Nakara vs. Union of India is relied upon to contend
that the said judgment applies not only to cut-off dates as regards
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application No.31 of 2021
payment of pension but also to payment of gratuity. The judgment in
Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd vs. Burhanpur Tapti Mills Mazdoor
Sangh is also relied upon to contend that a scheme of gratuity and a
scheme of pension have much in common. A further judgment in
Allahabad Bank vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees'
Association, which was decided on 15.12.2009, is relied upon to
contend that remedial statutes should be construed liberally. In
addition, the judgment in Vijay vs. State of Maharashtra [(2006)
6 SCC 289] is relied upon to contend that even a statute which is not
expressly retrospective may be construed as retrospective if it is
beneficial to the community.
5. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and limited to
errors apparent on the face of the record, the discovery of new
evidence which could not be placed before the Court in spite of the
exercise of reasonable diligence, or any other sufficient reason. The
failure or inability of the review applicant to place the judgments
currently cited and the other grounds stated by the review applicant
do not qualify on any of the aforementioned parameters.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application No.31 of 2021
6. Accordingly, Review Application No.31 of 2021 is dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected
W.M.P.No.3777 of 2021 is closed.
(S.B., CJ.) (S.K.R., J.)
15.04.2021
Index : Yes / No
rrg
To:
1.The Secretary,
The Union of India
Ministry of Labour,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
RAFI MARG,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Secretary,
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3.Chairman, CBDT,
Ministry of Finance,
North Block,
New Delhi – 110 001.
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
Review Application No.31 of 2021
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
rrg
Review Application No.31 of 2021
15.04.2021
__________
http://www.judis.nic.in
