Setting aside interest directions without express reasoning constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, via order dated 10.04.2017, directed the EPFO to refund Rs. 25,93,021/- to the petitioner school within 15 days, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply from the date of recovery until realization

This order was upheld by a Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2863 of 2017 on 03.10.2018

The EPFO preferred a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 32 of 2019), which was dismissed on 16.06.2023.

However, the Division Bench added an observation that the refund was subject to verification that the amount did not include dues for 63 specific employees

When the petitioners filed a contempt petition for non-payment of interest, it was disposed of with the observation that the LPA judgment did not explicitly refer to the interest component

Consequently, the petitioners filed this review petition with a 388-day delay, arguing that the omission of the interest direction in the LPA operative portion was an error apparent on the face of the record

1. Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 388 days in filing the review petition.

2. Whether the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 32 of 2019 intended to disturb or set aside the direction for payment of 12% interest awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the Single Judge.

3. Whether the omission of a specific direction regarding interest in the operative portion of the LPA judgment constitutes an error apparent on the face of record triable under review jurisdiction.

The Court applied the principles governing review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically the doctrine of "error apparent on the face of the record"

Regarding the condonation of delay, the court applied the "sufficient cause" test, establishing that active litigation in a related forum (contempt proceedings) demonstrates a lack of indolence

The court also addressed the "person aggrieved" requirement for maintaining a review petition, referencing the principle that acceptance of a principal amount does not inherently constitute a waiver of the right to interest

The Court first condoned the delay, noting the petitioners were not indolent but were actively pursuing the interest claim through contempt proceedings

On the merits, the Court observed that the LPA Bench had categorically stated it found "no reason to interfere with the Writ Court's order" and "dismissed" the appeal

The Court reasoned that since the Single Judge had upheld the Tribunal’s interest direction, the dismissal of the LPA necessarily implied the affirmation of that interest

The Court found that the EPFO's argument—that the absence of interest in the operative paragraph meant it was impliedly set aside—was untenable because such a modification would require specific reasoning, which was absent in the LPA judgment

The Court further rejected the EPFO’s contention that the petitioners were not "aggrieved" because they accepted the principal amount; it held that receiving the principal during contempt proceedings does not equate to a waiver of statutory or adjudicated interest

The Court clarified that the omission was an error apparent on the face of the record

The Court directed the EPFO to compute and pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum (starting 15 days after the Appellate Authority's original order) on the sum of Rs. 25,93,021/- within eight weeks

The interest calculation must account for the fact that the principal amount was eventually paid on 21.02.2024

No order as to costs was made