Connected gratuity writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the parties’ voluntary compromise.

The three connected writ petitions challenged orders made by the appellate and controlling authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The petitioners were former directors of the company, and Respondents 5–13 were its former workmen.

During the writ proceedings, the parties filed a joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to settle the disputes and dispose of all three petitions on agreed terms.

The settlement provided, among other things, for payment of ₹2,00,000 to each workman, withdrawal of pending claims, and release of employment-related claims.

The parties appeared before the Court; their advocates identified them and their signatures, and the parties confirmed that the settlement was voluntary and made without duress.

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides the procedural basis for a court to record a compromise and dispose of proceedings where it is satisfied that the parties have settled their dispute.

The writ petitions were brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the underlying dispute concerned orders under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; however, the Court did not determine any substantive issue under that Act.

The Court verified that the compromise petition was signed by the parties, that their identities and signatures were confirmed by their advocates, and that the parties affirmed the settlement was voluntary and free from duress.

Being satisfied with the compromise terms, the Court accepted them as the basis for disposing of all three connected writ petitions, without adjudicating the merits of the gratuity authorities’ orders.

It also ordered the refund of the petitioners’ court fee, subject to verification.