ORDER: The writ petitioner seeks review of the judgment. 2. The petitioner is a retired employee of the second respondent society. He was not disbursed the gratuity payable to him on his retirement. The writ petition was filed, in the circumstances, for a direction to the second respondent to disburse the gratuity payable to the petitioner with interest. A counter affidavit was filed by the second respondent society contending that the petitioner has caused loss to the society while working as its Secretary and consequently, the gratuity payable to him has been adjusted towards the said loss. In the light of the said stand taken by the second respondent, the writ petition was dismissed, holding that the issue whether there exists any liability for the petitioner and if so, whether gratuity payable to the petitioner can be adjusted against the same as also the issue whether adjustments claimed to have been made is in accordance with law are not matters which could be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Gratuity is a statutory benefit payable by the societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (the Act) to their employees. Section 62 of the Act provides for the same. Rule 59 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the Rules) deals with the amounts payable by way of gratuity by societies to their employees. Neither Section 62 of the Act nor Rule 59 of the Rules confers power on the employer society to effect recovery from the gratuity payable to the employee. This aspect of the matter was omitted to be noticed while disposing of the writ petition. This being an error apparent on the face of the record, I am of the view that the judgment rendered in the writ petition is liable to reviewed and recalled. The review petition, in the circumstances, is allowed and the judgment dated 27.9.2016 in W.P.(C) No.37270 of 2015 is recalled.