Non-payment of gratuity constitutes a continuous cause of action, overriding the plea of limitation.

The petitioner (Official Assignee of a de-registered Co-operative Oil Industry) challenged orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority (Industrial Court, Latur) under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972

The respondents are former employees whose services were retrenched.

After a considerable delay (approximately 30-31 years), the employees filed applications claiming they had not received the full amount of gratuity due to them

The petitioner appeared before the Controlling Authority but failed to file a reply, leading to ex-parte orders in favor of the employees

Effectively, the petitioner argued that the claims were time-barred and that payments had already been made at the time of retrenchment, though no concrete documentary evidence (vouchers) was produced to prove such payments

1. Whether the applications for gratuity filed by the respondents were barred by limitation given the delay of over 30 years.

2. Whether the non-payment or under-payment of gratuity constitutes a continuous cause of action.

3. Whether the matters should be remanded to the Controlling Authority to allow the petitioner to produce evidence of payment.

The Court applied the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, characterizing it as "welfare legislation" intended to protect employees' rights

Regarding limitation, the Court relied on the principle that the right to receive gratuity is a statutory right, and its non-payment constitutes a "continuous cause of action"

State Bank of India, Goa v. Laxmikant Vithal Palekar & ors. (2010)

Shivlingappa v. Management of Minerva Mills (2001)

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument on limitation, reasoning that since gratuity is a fundamental right of an employee, the failure of an employer to discharge this liability creates a subsisting and continuous cause of action

The Court noted that despite having the opportunity to contest the matter before the Controlling Authority, the petitioner failed to file a reply or present evidence such as payment vouchers or account extracts that clearly proved the gratuity was paid

The Court observed that the respondents are now senior citizens (aged 70–80 years) and the petitioner’s claim of prior payment was not fortified by any document

Consequently, the Court found no merit in remanding the case, as it would only cause further hardship to the retired employees without a "certain" evidentiary basis from the petitioner

The High Court dismissed all the Writ Petitions, upholding the orders of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities.

The respondents-employees were expressly permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the petitioner in the Court

No relief of remand was granted