Gratuity payments under Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be denied based on benefits from a welfare fund without proper government exemption; review petitions cannot contest previously decided matters.

O R D E R

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These Review Petitions are filed seeking to review the common judgment dated 03.12.2025, allowing W.A.Nos.951 of 2024, 1220 of 2024 and 1222 of 2024.

2. Review Petitioners were respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the said Writ Appeals and respondents herein were the appellants in the said Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals had been filed by the respondents challenging the common judgment dated 13.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) Nos.37503, 35649 and 36325 of 2022 filed by them. For the sake of easy reference to the parties and exhibits, R.P.No.51 of 2026 is taken as the lead case.

3. Brief facts relevant to the disposal of these Review Petitions are as follows:

The respondents, retired abkari workers of Review Petitioner No.1 Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’), had filed Writ Petitions expressing the common grievance that the Corporation had refused to pay them gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Gratuity Act") purportedly on the ground that terminal benefits were already being disbursed to them by the Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Board (KAWWF). They preferred the W.P.(C)s inter alia seeking to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ or order declaring that abkari workers are entitled to get gratuity under the Gratuity Act and under Rule 76 of the Service Rules of the Corporation.

4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C)s, inter alia, holding that accepting the contentions of the respondent abkari workers would result in a duplication of gratuity payments, ie., one under the Welfare Fund and another under the Gratuity Act, thereby leading to unjust enrichment. The said dismissal was challenged by the respondent abkari workers by filing the Writ Appeals.

5. The said Writ Appeals were allowed, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and inter alia directing the Review Petitioners 1 and 2 to pay gratuity to the respondents/appellants herein based on their eligibility under the relevant service rules of the respondent Corporation as well under the Gratuity Act.

6. These Review Petitions are filed seeking to review the said judgment allowing the WAs inter alia on the ground that there are errors apparent on the face of the record, making the said judgments fit to be reviewed.

7. Heard Sri.Naveen T., Advocate, for the Review Petitioners, Sri.Deepu Thankan, Advocate for the Abkari Workers and Sri.S.Krishna Moorthy, Advocate for the respondent Welfare Fund Board.

8. It is submitted by Sri. Naveen T., that an error apparent on the face of the record had crept into the judgment sought to be reviewed, insofar as the positive directions rendered by this Court in an earlier case, as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to the same subject, which had directed the Government and the Corporation to enrol the abkari workers in the Kerala Abkari Workers' Welfare Fund Board, and the consequences flowing therefrom had been overlooked while rendering the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is a specific case of the learned counsel that the Division Bench judgment dated 31.08.2006 in O.P. (C) No.21971 of 2002 and connected cases in the case in Manoj K.R. and others v. Kerala State Beverages Corporation and others had held that the Government is bound to implement the G.O. dated 01.03.2006 insofar as the Government as well as the Corporation was duty bound to enroll the respondent a