Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not allow for rehearing or reargument of previously decided issues.

ORDER :

1. The appellant in W.A.No.407 of 2024 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal, claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that judgment.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant, the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to5.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7523 of 2023 the proceedings issued by the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board ordering the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,34,235/- with 10% annual interest being the arrears of employers’ contribution in respect of respondents 3 to 5 who were former employees of the Bank was found as in order and thereby dismissed the writ petition. Challenging that judgment, the petitioner filed W.A. No.407 of 2024. Concurring with the findings of the learned Single Judge, this Court dismissed the writ appeal. However, this Court had failed to note that the 2^nd respondent has already transferred the employers’ contribution with accrued interest to the 1^st respondent Board on 09.08.2024. The delay in transferring that amount was on the part of the 2^nd respondent and not on the part of the petitioner Bank. The 2^nd respondent is yet to transfer the contributions relating to the remaining employees of the Bank. Therefore, casting the liability to pay interest on the petitioner, for the delay committed by the 2^nd respondent, is without proper appreciation of the materials on record. In the judgment, reliance was placed on the remittance of a sum of Rs.1,08,97,662/- made by the erstwhile Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank towards interest on the pension fund arrears of 36 employees as calculated by the 1^st respondent in Ext.R1(a) order dated 26.11.2022. The said reliance placed in the judgment is also an error apparent on the face of the record. The decision pertaining to Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank was taken pursuant to the meeting held on 04.08.2022 between the representatives of the Co-operative Department and Pension Board. Moreover, in the case Thiruvananthapuram District Co- operative Bank, there was delay on the part of the Bank in remitting the amount received from the Employees Provident Fund Organisation to the Pension Board. But in the instant case, there is no such delay on the part of the petitioner bank.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents 3 to 5 submitted that as per Clause 29 of the pension scheme the petitioner Bank was required to transfer the employers’ contribution along with interest accrued from employees provident fund to the pension fund within 1½ years from 30.06.2009, failing which the Bank was liable to pay the defaulted amount with interest at 24% which was later reduced to 10% compound interest. The Petitioner Bank had not taken any steps to get the amount transferred from the 2^nd respondent Employees Provident Fund Organisation to the 1^st respondent Board within time. If the delay is on the part of the 2^nd respondent, the Bank ought to have proceeded against the 2^nd respondent. Due to the default by the petitioner Bank, respondents 3 to 5 were compelled to remit the employers’ contribution with interest from their personal funds to avoid delay in pension disbursal. There is no error in the judgment, which wa