Employer's failure to issue statutory notice under Section 7(2) negates limitation periods for gratuity claims.

The Respondent employees (in the company's petitions) resigned from M/s. Aplab Ltd. between 2015 and 2016.

The company did not pay the full gratuity, citing financial difficulties and the employees' failure to submit Form “I” under the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972.

The employees approached the Controlling Authority in 2022—after a six-year delay—claiming gratuity calculated on 26 days’ wages (per company policy) rather than the statutory 15 days, and seeking the inclusion of "Special Allowance" in the definition of "wages".

The Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority partially allowed the claims but restricted calculation to 15 days' wages.

Both the employer and employees filed cross-writ petitions challenging these orders.

Whether the employees' claims were barred by limitation given the multi-year delay and failure to submit Form “I”.

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

Whether "Special Allowance" falls within the definition of "wages" under Section 2(s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Whether the employees are entitled to gratuity at the rate of 26 days per year based on alleged company policy.

The court applied Section 7(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which mandates the employer to determine and notify gratuity regardless of whether an application is made.

It relied on the second proviso to Rule 10 of the Maharashtra Rules, which stipulates that no limitation applies if the employer fails to issue the statutory notice.

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

The court also invoked Section 7(3A) regarding mandatory interest for delayed payment, noting that interest can only be waived if the employer obtains written permission from the Controlling Authority.

The Court held that the employer cannot plead limitation because it failed its primary duty under Section 7(2) to determine and notify the gratuity amount upon the employees' resignation.

Regarding interest, the Court found the employer liable under Section 7(3A) because it did not obtain the required statutory permission to delay payment; however, interest stops accruing 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," the Court found the lower authorities failed to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the allowance was "dearness allowance" in disguise or if the photocopied "restructuring policy" was authentic.

The Court determined that writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for resolving these disputed questions of fact.

The Court held that: (i) the claims are not barred by limitation;

(ii) interest is payable on the unpaid/enhanced balance but not on already deposited amounts from their date of deposit;

and (iii) the Appellate Authority must specifically determine if "Special Allowance" constitutes "wages" and if the 26-day calculation policy is valid based on original records.

The parties were directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on March 23, 2026.