Is a judgment of an inferior court, rendered contrary to a binding earlier decision of a superior court, liable to be reviewed on that count? This is the short issue for consideration in this application for review.

2. One of the issues that arose for decision in I.C.No.25 of 1996 filed by the respondent-establishment before the Employees’ Insurance court, Palakkad, for short, the “E.I.Court”, was as to whether holiday wages will amount to wages within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, hereinafter, the “ESI Act”, for short. The E.I. Court, following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in E.S.I. Corporation v. Malabar Cashewnut and Allied Products (1993 (1) LLJ 596) answered that issue against the Corporation by order dated 4-5-1998. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”, for short, appealed against that decision to this Court, contending that S.L.P.(C) Nos. 10057-59/93, against the decision of this court in MC & AP’s case (supra) are pending before the Apex Court. This was specifically raised as Ground (B) in the appeal memorandum and one of the substantial questions of law suggested in the memorandum, for consideration in the appeal, was as to whether the additional remuneration paid to employees under the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958, hereinafter, the ‘Holidays Act’, will come within the definition of “wages” as defined in Section 2(22) of the ESI Act. When the appeal came up for final hearing on 16-10-2001, it was submitted on behalf of the Corporation that its appeal against the decision of this Court in MC & AP’s case (supra) was still pending before the Apex Court. Accordingly, the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued following the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in MC & AP’s case (supra) apparently because, the Full Bench decision was not shown to have been set aside or set at naught by the Apex Court and it was, therefore binding on the learned single Judge.

3. This review petition is filed by the Corporation contending that long before the disposal of the appeal by this Court on 16-10-2001, the Apex Court had reversed the Full Bench decision of this Court. The said fact is not in dispute. By order dated 3-12-1997, of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in C.A.Nos.3851-53/1993, it was held that the wages, as per the Holidays Act, on holidays, to the employees, would form part of the “wages” as per Section 2(22) of the ESI Act and that the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn. V. Popular Automobiles & Ors. [(1997) 7 S.C.C. 665] answers the point. It is urged on behalf of the Corporation that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record, in as much as it was delivered contrary to the ratio of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court though the said order of the Apex Court reversing the decision of the Full Bench was not brought to the notice of this Court.

4. Per contra, it was urged on behalf of the respondent-establishment that no ground for review is made out. Reference was made to the 16th Edn. of Mulla on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 wherein it is recorded that (1) in Amrit Lal v. Madho Das [1884) 6 All 292] it was held that where a decree is based upon a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court, and that decision is subsequently overruled by a Full Bench, the reversal is no ground for a review of the decree and that (2) it was held in Ellen v. Rasheer [(1876) 1 Cal 184] and in Abdul Sadiq v. Abdul Aziz [(1899) 21 All 152], that the production of a new ruling or authority, which if brought to the notice of the Judge at the first hearing might have altered the judgment, is not a ‘new and important matter’ within the meaning of the rule providing for review. The decision of the Apex Court in Shahada Khatoon v. Amjad Ali [2000 (1) KLT 696 (SC)] was cited