Run three checks on one payslip at once. See which of your PF, gratuity and passbook interest disagree, ranked by what each costs, and the one cause behind them.
Why not just run the three check pages one after another?
Because the same wrong assumption looks different in each of them, so three separate verdicts do not add up to a diagnosis. An employer applying the provident fund ceiling underpays your PF and pays your gratuity correctly. An employer who drops your dearness allowance underpays both, by the same proportion. Reading each page on its own you would chase two problems where there is one, or conclude the gratuity page is broken because it disagrees with a PF page that is behaving perfectly. This page reads every payment back into the wage it came from, which is the thing they share.
Why are the gaps not added into one total?
Because they belong to different periods and adding them would produce a number that means nothing. A provident fund gap recurs every month, a gratuity gap happened once at the end of a career, and a passbook interest gap belongs to one financial year. Each is printed with its own period, and the ranking uses what each costs over a year - a monthly gap counted twelve times. That is stated rather than applied quietly, because it changes the order: ₹4,200 a month is worth chasing ahead of a ₹25,000 one-off, and the raw figures say the opposite.
Why is the ₹15,000 ceiling shown as a gap if it is legal?
Because both things are true and a reader needs both. Paragraph 26A(2) of the Provident Funds Scheme limits what an employer must contribute to the amount payable on a monthly pay of ₹15,000, so stopping there is not an error and nothing obliges them to do more. It is also employer money you do not receive, every month, for as long as you work there - and that is worth knowing before your next salary negotiation rather than after it. The page ranks it with the rest and marks it lawful, because "wrong" and "expensive" are different sentences to take to payroll.
It says two causes and will not choose. What do I do?
Take each line up separately, which is what that verdict means. Your PF and your gratuity implied different monthly wages, so no single wrong number in payroll explains both, and there is nothing to be gained by guessing which is the real one. Open the check page behind each line: each of them prices every rule that could have produced your figure and names the ones that fit, which is a much more specific question to put to payroll than "this looks wrong".
Do I have to have left the job to use this?
No. Leave the gratuity figure at zero and the page runs the provident fund check alone, which is the one that matters while you are still employed, and tells you it skipped the other. The gratuity check only has something to say once there is a settlement to check it against. Add your passbook opening balance and the interest posted for the year and the third check runs too, at any time.
Does this replace the individual check pages?
No, and it deliberately shows less than they do. Each of them prices every rule that could have produced your figure, recomputes it line by line, and carries its own sources and its own refusals - the not-covered employer, the reduced 10% rate, the four-years-240-days argument. This page compares their answers and finds what they share. When you want to argue with a figure, open the page behind it: that is where the working is, and the two are pinned together by a test so they cannot drift apart.