After Compensation Settlement, Madras HC Closes Employee’s Review, Leaving Pension And Other Dues Open For A Separate Claim

The petitioner, an employee of the fourth respondent’s firm, had sought EPF, gratuity and compensation in W.P.(MD) No. 5202 of 2022.

On the fourth respondent’s submission that ₹65,000 had been paid as compensation, the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 9 October 2025, directing the first respondent to pay any gratuity due within six weeks.

The petitioner sought review, alleging that the fourth respondent had made a wrong representation and that the original order had been passed without representation for the petitioner.

The Court referred the dispute to mediation; the parties later reported that the compensation dispute had been settled and the agreed amount paid. The petitioner’s counsel stated that the pension claim had not been considered in mediation.

The application was brought under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court stated that the scope of review is limited.

The Court considered the limited scope of review alongside the parties’ mediated settlement, under which the agreed compensation had been paid.

Given the nature of the original order and the settlement, it closed the review application rather than reopening the writ proceedings.

Because the pension claim had not been resolved in mediation, the Court left that claim, and any claim for other dues from the fourth respondent, open to separate pursuit.

It clarified that the petitioner could pursue a separate claim concerning pension or any other dues from the fourth respondent.

No costs were awarded.