Employer's failure to issue statutory notice under Section 7(2) precludes limitation plea against employee's gratuity claim.

The Respondent employees (primarily in management cadres) resigned from M/s. Aplab Ltd. at various times (e.g., 2015).

The employer did not pay gratuity, citing financial difficulties and the employees' failure to submit "Form I" applications within the 30-day prescribed limit.

The employees filed applications before the Controlling Authority in 2022—after a gap of approximately six years.

The Controlling Authority partially allowed the claims, including "Special Allowance" in the "wages" calculation and awarding 10% interest.

Both parties appealed; the Appellate Authority dismissed both appeals, leading to these cross-writ petitions.

Whether the employees' claims for gratuity were barred by limitation due to the delay in filing Form I and the absence of a delay condonation application.

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 calculated at 26 days per year (per alleged company policy) instead of the statutory 15 days.

The Court applied Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which mandates the employer to determine and give notice of gratuity "as soon as it becomes payable," irrespective of whether an application is filed.

It relied on the second proviso to Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Maharashtra) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that no limitation applies if the employer fails to issue the statutory notice under Section 7(2).

The definition of "wages" under Section 2(s) was applied to distinguish between dearness allowance (included) and other allowances (excluded).

Section 7(3A) regarding mandatory interest for delayed payments was also invoked.

The Court reasoned that since the employer failed its statutory duty under Section 7(2) to determine gratuity and notify the employee/authority, it could not invoke the 30-day limitation period under Rule 7 to defeat a beneficial claim.

Regarding interest, the Court held that while the employer is liable under Section 7(3A) because it didn't obtain written permission for the delay, interest should not run on the "admitted amount" after the date it was actually deposited with the Authority.

On the inclusion of "Special Allowance," the Court found the lower authorities failed to determine its true nature—i.e., whether it was "dearness allowance" in disguise or an excluded incentive.

Furthermore, the claim for 26 days of wages was based on photocopied documents whose authenticity and evidentiary value were never properly adjudicated.

The Court held that: (i) the claims are not barred by limitation due to the employer's failure to comply with Section 7(2).

(ii) interest is payable, but credit must be given for the date of deposit of the admitted amount.

and (iii) the Appellate Authority must specifically determine if "Special Allowance" constitutes "wages" and if the 26-day calculation policy is proved.

Parties were directed to appear on March 23, 2026, with a decision due within eight weeks.