As per case facts, the employer, Cement Corporation of India, filed petitions against multiple employees who had sought gratuity several years after their retirement. The employer contended that these employees ... were contract laborers, not directly employed, and therefore, gratuity applications were not maintainable against them. They also argued that their contracts with contractors stipulated the contractor's liability for gratuity, and thus, the contractor should have been impleaded. Additionally, the employer argued that the applications were time-barred as per rules. The employees, on the other hand, asserted that they had worked continuously for over two decades, implying the contracts were a mere facade, and that the principal employer was ultimately responsible. The question arose whether the applications for gratuity were hit by limitation when the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, itself does not prescribe a limitation period, and whether the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract laborers. Finally, the Court held that a substantive right to gratuity cannot be defeated by procedural limitations mentioned in rules when the parent Act has none. It further ruled that the principal employer is liable to pay gratuity to contract laborers, even if their contracts with agencies shift the responsibility, and can later recover the amount from the contractor. The Court clarified that interest on gratuity accrues from the date of an employee's exit from employment, not from the date of application. Consequently, the employer's petitions were dismissed.