Review petitions must demonstrate apparent errors on record; court cannot re-examine evidence or re-evaluate conclusions from original judgments.

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 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, 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 inPrantiya 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 immaterial whether the beneficiary of such remittance/recovery is retired or in service. Pointing to the dictum inJose V. Thomas & others v.