( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocate, Ms. Krishna Raval, appearing on behalf of petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner - Deputy Executive Engineer (R and B) Department, Surendranagar District Panchayat, has challenged the order passed by the Controlling Authority in Gratuity Application No. 8 of 2006 dated 24. 4. 2006. The Controlling Authority, Surendranagar has directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 36,672/- with 10% simple interest w. e. f. 14. 12. 2005. That order has been challenged in Appeal before the appellate authority being Appeal No. 56 of 2006 dated 6. 10. 2006, whereby, the order passed by the Controlling Authority has been confirmed by appellate authority. ( 3 ) LEARNED advocate, Ms. Krishna Raval, raised first contention that respondent is not an employee within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the Gratuity Act,1972 and second contention is that Gratuity Act is not applicable to the petitioner. She relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India and Anr. v. Manik Lal Banerjee reported in (2006) 9 SCCC 643. She also submitted that Railway employees are not governed by Payment of Gratuity Act in view of Section 2 (e) thereof, because such employees are governed by the Railway Service and Pension Rules. The Apex Court has considered that Rule 70 to Railway servant provides for payment of gratuity. Rule 49 of the said Rules provides for the manner in which emoluments of such an employee should be calculated. ?pay? in those Rules means the pay in the revised scales under the Fourth Pay Commission Report. ( 4 ) I have considered the contentions raised by learned advocate, Ms. Raval. The service of the respondent was terminated on 11. 9. 2002. The respondent was working as daily rated helper. He remained absent as he was detained in custody. Therefore, his service was terminated. He was appointed as daily wager helper on 21. 1. 1979 and his service was terminated on 11. 9. 2002 but, the amount of gratuity was not paid to him and, therefore, respondent approached to the Controlling Authority. The amount of gratuity claimed by respondent is Rs. 56,000/ -. According to the petitioner, pension is not available to the respondent because he was daily wager helper. No doubt, he had completed 19 years service with the petitioner. His basic salary was Rs. 2900/- + dearness allowance Rs. The amount of gratuity claimed by respondent is Rs. 56,000/ -. According to the petitioner, pension is not available to the respondent because he was daily wager helper. No doubt, he had completed 19 years service with the petitioner. His basic salary was Rs. 2900/- + dearness allowance Rs. 1073/-, the total of which comes to Rs. 3973/ -. There was no dispute between the parties about date of joining in service and date of termination and last wages received by the respondent which comes to Rs. 3973/ -. The Controlling Authority come to the conclusion that under Section 1 sub-section (3) by Notification w. e. f. 1982, this Act has been made applicable to the local bodies and, therefore, the Act is applicable to the petitioner. Considering the definition of employee under Section 2 (e) means any person employed on wages in any establishment to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, is considered to be an employee. When specific notification is there against the petitioner and in light of daily wager helper, respondent is satisfying the definition of Section 2 (e) and, therefore, he is covered by definition of ?employee?. Therefore, considering the last wages received by the respondent, the Controlling Authority has accordingly directed to the petitioner to pay Rs. 36,675/- w. e. f. 14. 12. 2005 with 10% simple interest. The appellate authority has also considered the contention raised by the petitioner in Page. 19 Para. 1 to 4. The appellate authority has also considered that under Section 1 Sub-Section (3), the petitioner is covered by the Notification issued by the Central Government. The post of Helper covered under Section 2 (e) as an employee. According to appellate authority, once the Gratuity Act is made applicable, it is a duty of the petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity to the respondent for the period during which he was in service with the petitioner. Therefore, the appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the Controlling Authority. One contention raised by learned advocate, Ms. Raval, that his service was terminated because he was taken in custody for a long period. Section 2 (q) of the Act provides that ?retirement? means termination of the service of an employee otherwise than on superannuation. Meaning thereby that the retirement includes termination of service. One contention raised by learned advocate, Ms. Raval, that his service was terminated because he was taken in custody for a long period. Section 2 (q) of the Act provides that ?retirement? means termination of the service of an employee otherwise than on superannuation. Meaning thereby that the retirement includes termination of service. Therefore, according to my opinion, appellate authority has rightly decided the matter and for that, appellate authority has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. ( 5 ) APART from the aforesaid observations made by this Court, recently the Apex Court has considered the same question in case of Jaswant Singh Gill v. M/s. Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd and Ors. reported in 2006 (11) Scale 624 wherein the Apex Court has observed that denial of payment of gratuity ? power to withhold penalty contained in Rule 34. 3 of the Rules must be subject to the provisions of the Act ? A statutory right accrued cannot be impaired by reason of a rule which does not have force of a statute ? The respondent is a Government company wherein appellant joined as a Chief General Manager. The question decided by the Apex Court that whether the provisions of Gratuity Act shall prevail over the Rules framed by the Coal India Company. The answer is given that provisions of Gratuity Act therefore must prevail over the Rules of the Coal Indian Company. 5. 1 Similarly in this also, the petitioner is a State authority and Gratuity Act has been made applicable under Section 1 Sub-Section (3) of the Notification. Therefore, even according to contention raised by learned advocate, Ms. Raval, that petitioner is having their own Rules which relate to pensionary benefits and gratuity. Even though when Gratuity Act is made applicable by Central Government Notification under Section 1 Sub-Section (3), then, provisions of Gratuity Act,1972 would prevail against the services rules of the petitioner. Therefore, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned advocate, Ms. Raval, cannot be accepted and same is rejected and the order passed by both the authorities below are legal and valid. None of the authorities have committed any error in passing such order. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority. Even this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence which was appreciated by the both the authorities and this Court cannot interfere in case when two views are possible. None of the authorities have committed any error in passing such order. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority. Even this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence which was appreciated by the both the authorities and this Court cannot interfere in case when two views are possible. Therefore, according to my opinion, there is no error on the face of record, therefore, no interference is required by this Court while exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, there is no substance in the present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.