JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. 741 of 2026 seeks condonation of delay of 388 days in instituting this review petition. 3. We had perused the averments made in the I.A. and we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown. This is not a case where the review petitioners were indolent. Review petitioners were continuously taking steps and, in that regard, based on the success before the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge, even filed a contempt petition. 4. The contempt petition was disposed of observing that the judgment and order dated 03.10.2018, passed by the Letters Patent Bench, has not made any reference to the interest component. This review petition was then filed soon thereafter. 5. This, according to us, constitutes sufficient cause for filing this review petition beyond the period of limitation. 6. Quite fairly, the respondent has also not opposed the condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and dispose of I.A. No. 641 of 2026. 7. Mr Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the EPFO, submitted that the review petition should be considered on its merits today. Mr Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, accordingly, continued with the arguments in the review petition. 8. Mr Anand, submitted that the Appellate Authority in the present case vide order dated 10.04.2017, allowed the review petitioners’ appeal and directed the EPFO to refund the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- within 15 days of the order, failing which, the EPFO was directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of recovery/payment till its realisation. He submitted that this order was upheld by the learned Single Judge vide its detailed order dated 03.10.2018 in WP(C) No. 2863 of 2017, instituted by EPFO. He submitted that the EPFO's Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 16 th June, 2023 with the observation that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded to the DAV school, only if, after proper verification, it was found that this amount does not include provident fund dues and interest, if any, under Section 7Q for 63 employees. He submitted that this clearly means that the direction for payment of interest by the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge was never disturbed. 9. He submitted that this clearly means that the direction for payment of interest by the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge was never disturbed. 9. Mr Ashutosh Anand submitted that the contempt petition filed by the review petitioners was dismissed on the ground that there was no specific direction to pay interest. He submitted that on a meaningful reading of the order dated 16 th June 2023, it is apparent that the direction for payment of interest was never disturbed. Without prejudice, He submits that this direction could not have been disturbed without assigning any reasons. He submits that this amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record that may be corrected in the exercise of review jurisdiction. 10. Mr Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the EPFO, submits that in paragraph 3 of the judgment and order dated 16 th June, 2023, cognisance was taken of the Tribunal's order for refund with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment/realisation. He, then, refers to the operative portion contained in paragraph 10 of the judgment and order dated 16 th June, 2023, to submit that consciously the direction about payment of interest at the rate of 12% was not reflected therein. He submits that this would only mean that the Division Bench has set aside the direction for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 11. Mr Rupesh Singh submitted that admittedly, the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- was refunded to the review petitioners after verifying the position regarding the 63 employees. He submits that this amount was accepted by the review petitioners without any protest. He, therefore, submitted that the review petitioners cannot be regarded as persons aggrieved to maintain this review petition. He relied on Thakur Umed Singh and Another Vs. Sobhag Mal Dhadha and Another , AIR 1915 SCC OnLine PC 41 to submit that only an aggrieved party can maintain a review petition. 12. Mr Rupesh Singh also submitted that the Provident Funds Act, nowhere provides for refund of the amounts with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or any rate at all. He, therefore, submits that even the Award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum was incorrect and, therefore, the same was not repeated by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 16 th June, 2023. 13. He, therefore, submits that even the Award of interest at the rate of 12% per annum was incorrect and, therefore, the same was not repeated by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 16 th June, 2023. 13. For the above reasons, Mr Singh submitted that this review petition is not maintainable and, in any event, is not a case of an error apparent on the face of the record. 14. The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 15. The records in this case show that the review petitioner's appeal bearing A.T.A. No. 771 (18) 2016 was allowed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. 16. The operative portion of the Tribunal’s order dated 10.04.2017 is contained in paragraph-3, which is transcribed below for the convenience of reference. “3. Keeping in view facts of present application and fact that no fresh order u/s 7-C of the Act passed by respondent so if amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- already recovered from appellant then respondent is directed to release the excess amount within 15 days of this order failing which appellant shall be entitled to recover such amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of recovery / payment till its realization. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” 17. The EPFO aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order instituted W.P.(C) No. 2863 of 2017 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. By order dated 03.10.2018, this petition was dismissed without even going into the issue of the competence of the Provident Fund Commissioner to challenge the Tribunal’s order. This dismissal was on merits, and the same implies that the Tribunal's order, inter alia, including the direction for payment of interest, was upheld by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 18. The EPFO then preferred the L.P.A. No. 32 of 2019 to challenge the learned Single Judge’s order dated 03.10.2018. In paragraph 3, the Letters Patent Bench, no doubt, referred to the Tribunal's direction to refund the sum of Rs. 25,93,021/- to the review petitioners within 15 days, failing which the said amount was to carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of payment/realisation. 19. After that, Letters Patent Bench, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, referred to the controversy above the liability towards 63 employees in respect of which provident fund contribution has already been deposited. 19. After that, Letters Patent Bench, in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, referred to the controversy above the liability towards 63 employees in respect of which provident fund contribution has already been deposited. In fact, in paragraph 8, the Letters Patent Bench observed that this was an admitted position. However, since some dispute was raised by the EPFO on this issue, the Letters Patent Bench, after categorically noting that it did not find any reason to interfere with the Writ Court's order and would dismiss the LPA No. 32 of 2019, made an observation that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded to the review petitioners, only if, after proper verification, it was found that this amount does not include provident fund dues and interest, if any, under Section 7Q for 63 employees. 20. For the convenience of reference, we transcribe paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, out of which paragraph 10 is the operational portion from the Letters Patent Bench’s order dated 16 th June 2023, of which review is now applied for. “8. From the records, we find that the DAV School is not disputing its liability towards 63 employees in respect of which provident fund contribution has been deposited by it – this is an admitted position. 9. The DAV School is also not disputing its liability to pay employees' provident fund contribution in respect of 22 employees who were identified in course of the enquiry. 10. While so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the writ Court's order and would dismiss LPA No. 32 of 2019 with an observation that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded to the DAV School, only if, after proper verification it is found that this amount does not include provident fund dues and interest, if any, under section 7Q for 63 employees.” 21. From the above, there is nothing to indicate that the Letters Patent Bench disturbed the Tribunal’s direction for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which direction was upheld by the learned Single Judge. The observation was only in the context of the dispute regarding 63 employees. The Letters Patent Bench directed them that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded only if, after proper verification, it is found that this amount does not include the provident fund dues and any interest under Section 7Q for the 63 employees. The observation was only in the context of the dispute regarding 63 employees. The Letters Patent Bench directed them that the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/- can be refunded only if, after proper verification, it is found that this amount does not include the provident fund dues and any interest under Section 7Q for the 63 employees. 22. In any event, even if we were to agree with Mr Rupesh Singh that paragraph-10 of the Letters Patent Bench’s order dated 16 th June 2023 impliedly sets aside the direction for payment of interest, we find that there is absolutely no discussion on this issue, nor is there any specific direction for setting aside this direction for payment of interest. The absence of reasons, according to us now, is only because the direction made by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the learned Single Judge was never intended to be disturbed. 23. The contention now raised by Mr Rupesh Singh that there is no provision under the Act for the award of interest was not even raised or considered. In any event, there is no merit in such contention because the Tribunal granted the EPFO 15 days’ time to refund the money, and it is only on their failure to do so that a direction was made for payment of interest. 24. Therefore, if it is held that the order dated 16 th June 2023 makes no provision for interest or sets aside the Tribunal's direction for payment of interest, then, on that ground, there is absolutely no discussion or reasoning to back such a conclusion, which will have to be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the record. From the context as well as the wording of the order dated 16 th June 2023, it is quite clear that there was never any intention, and consequently, no order was made to disturb the direction for the payment of interest. 25. The argument that the review petitioners are not the persons aggrieved is also entirely misconceived. The contempt petition was preferred, seeking not only the refund of Rs. 25,93,021/-, but also the interest components. If during the pendency of the contempt petition, the EPFO paid the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/-, it was not expected that the petitioner would refuse this amount. The acceptance of this amount certainly does not constitute any waiver or acquiescence. 26. The contempt petition was preferred, seeking not only the refund of Rs. 25,93,021/-, but also the interest components. If during the pendency of the contempt petition, the EPFO paid the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/-, it was not expected that the petitioner would refuse this amount. The acceptance of this amount certainly does not constitute any waiver or acquiescence. 26. The decision of the Privy Council was based on the facts and circumstances which have absolutely no connection or parallel with the facts and circumstances of the present case. Based merely upon the Privy Council, quoting the provisions of Section 114 of CPC, an argument is sought to be developed, which cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 27. Accordingly, we clarify that the Letters Patent Bench, by its order dated 16 th June 2023, had not disturbed the direction given by the Appellate Authority and upheld by the learned Single Judge for payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In any event, even if we were to accept Mr Rupesh Singh's contention that this direction was impliedly set aside by the learned Letters Patent Bench, then, we think that this was an error apparent on the face of the record, and such a direction could not have been set aside without any discussion or reasoning to support such setting aside. 28. The review petition is accordingly allowed, and directions are issued to the EPFO to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum beyond the period of 15 days from the date of the Appellate Authority's order on the amount of Rs. 25,93,021/-. This interest should be computed and paid to the review petitioners within 8 weeks from today. We record that the interest will be calculated as per the Tribunal's order, but after taking into account the fact that the principal amount was paid to the review petitioners on 21.02.2024 29. The review petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 30. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of the order.