I agree with the observations of Madhuji for the prime reason that it's the responsibility of the employer to compute the gratuity due and intimate the employee (in form No.L) who left, inviting him (or heir) to receive the gratuity thus computed. It's the fault on the part of the employer, and they have to disburse gratuity with accrued interest until full settlement.
Court Cases on Gratuity Payment
It's worth considering a few settled court cases in the matter for a proper understanding of the provisions:
In Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 40, it was decided that the interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The Gujarat High Court, through Justice Biren Vaishnav, reiterated that interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The petitioner had prayed for a declaration that the respondent's action in not paying the entire amount of Rs 10 lakhs towards gratuity to the petitioner was arbitrary. Hence, a direction was sought that respondents be directed to pay the remaining amount of gratuity to the petitioner along with 18% interest from the date of his retirement. The High Court expressed that, as per the Supreme Court decision of H. Gangahanume Gowda v. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 3 SCC 40, the interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary.
Consequences of Non-Payment of Gratuity
If the employer doesn't pay gratuity, in cases related to the non-payment of gratuity under this Act, the employer could face imprisonment for a term not less than six months but up to two years unless the court, with documented reasons, believes that a lesser term of imprisonment or a fine would serve the interests of justice.
Section 14: Act to Override Other Enactments
Also, read this section which will have an overriding effect over other acts: "Section: 14 Act to override other enactments, etc. The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act."
Limitation for Appeals Under the Payment of Gratuity Act
In the case of Indian Red-Cross Society vs Vidyaben H. Vyas on 27 August 2003, the Gujarat High Court held that the limitation prescribed under the Payment of Gratuity Act is 60 days for the purpose of preferring an appeal. The appellate authority is empowered to extend the period of limitation by another sixty days. The legal position enunciated by the Supreme Court in Shantilal M. Bhayani V. Shanti Bai must be understood in the context of the Limitation Act 1963. The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, and Madras High Court have concluded that limitation is not applicable to the appellate authority as it is an executive authority vested with quasi-judicial powers and, therefore, Section 5 to 25 of the Limitation Act do not apply to the persona designata or administrative authorities.
Judicial Observations on Gratuity Issues
The controlling authority had not committed any error, and there is no procedural irregularity by either of the authorities. The reasons given by both authorities are based on oral and documentary evidence produced before them, and the findings are not baseless or perverse. The Apex Court has considered these aspects in the case of ROSHAN DEEN V. PREETILAL, 2002 (1) SCC PAGE 100, where it observed that the purpose of powers conferred on the High Court is to advance justice, not to thwart it, even where justice is the by-product of an erroneous interpretation of law.
[Source: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/05/10/if-there-is-a-delay-in-payment-of-gratuity-whether-interest-on-delayed-gratuity-will-be-mandatory-or-discretionary-gujarat-high-court-retirement-employee-superannuation/]
[Source: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1190655/]