Employer's failure to determine gratuity amount negates limitation period for employee's statutory claim.

The Petitioner (employer) and various Respondents (employees/management cadre) filed cross-petitions against orders passed by the Controlling and Appellate Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

The employees resigned/retired between 2015-2016, but filed for gratuity only in 2022.

The employer contended the claims were barred by limitation as no Form “I” was submitted within 30 days.

The employer further argued that "Special Allowance" should be excluded from "wages" for calculation purposes.

The employees claimed that per company policy, they were entitled to gratuity calculated at 26 days per year (instead of 15) for service exceeding 15 years, and that "Special Allowance" was actually disguised dearness allowance.

1. Whether the claims for gratuity were barred by limitation under Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Rules due to the delay in filing applications.

2. Whether the employer is liable to pay interest under Section 7(3A) despite the employees' delay in approaching the Authority.

3. Whether "Special Allowance" falls within the definition of "wages" under Section 2(s) of the Act.

4. Whether the employees are entitled to 26 days of wages per year of service based on company policy.

The Court applied Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which mandates the employer to determine and provide notice of gratuity even without an employee application.

It relied on Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972, which waives limitation if the employer fails to issue the mandatory Section 7(2) notice.

Section 7(3A) was applied regarding the mandatory liability of interest for delayed payment unless written permission is obtained from the Authority.

The definition of "wages" under Section 2(s) was analyzed, which includes dearness allowance but excludes various other allowances.

The Court reasoned that the employer cannot plead limitation because it failed its statutory duty under Section 7(2) to determine gratuity and notify the Controlling Authority upon the employees' departure.

Regarding interest, the Court held that while the employer is liable for the delay, interest should not run on the "admitted amount" from the date it was actually deposited with the Authority.

On the substantive issue of "Special Allowance" and the 26-day calculation policy, the Court found the Appellate Authority failed to record clear findings on the nature of the allowance and the authenticity of photocopied policy documents.

The Court noted that the "label" of an allowance is not conclusive; its true nature must be determined by whether it is linked to the cost of living or is an independent incentive.

The Court modified the interest direction, stating interest is not payable on deposited amounts from the date of deposit.

The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide two specific questions: (a) whether "Special Allowance" is substantively "Dearness Allowance" under Section 2(s), and (b) whether the company policy entitles the officers to a 26-day calculation rate.

The Authority was directed to decide the remanded points within eight weeks.