Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—As common question of law and facts arise in this group of petitions and all the petitions are filed by one common petitioner - Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (herein after referred to as ‘the Corporation’), they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. In all this group of petitions, the petitioner - Corporation has challenged respective orders passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) confirmed by the Appellate Authority under the Act directing the petitioner - Corporation to pay amount of gratuity to the respective workmen of the Corporation under the Gratuity Act. 3. Respective respondents in each of the petitions who were working with the petitioner - Corporation submitted Gratuity Applications before the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act claiming amount of gratuity payable under the Act. It was the case on behalf of the respective workmen that they are entitled to amount of gratuity as per the calculation submitted by them as per the provisions of the Act and they are paid lessor amount of gratuity and therefore, it was requested to pass appropriate order directing the petitioner - Corporation to deposit / pay differential amount of gratuity. Said applications were opposed by the petitioner - Corporation submitting that the petitioner - Corporation has under provisions contained in Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1962’) framed / accepted benevolent scheme of gratuity for its own employees and the same is being implemented by the petitioner and that the petitioner has been exempted by the State Government by issuing Notification under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 from the applicability of Shops and Establishments Act and therefore, the petitioner does not fall under the purview of ‘Employer’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore, the said Act does not apply to the petitioner - Corporation. It was further submitted that respective workmen have been paid gratuity as per their own benevolent scheme which is framed under the Rules and published in Official Gazette. It was further contended that concerned Workmen were aware about the existence of the gratuity scheme and have also accepted the amount of gratuity accordingly. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss said applications. 4. It was further contended that concerned Workmen were aware about the existence of the gratuity scheme and have also accepted the amount of gratuity accordingly. Therefore, it was requested to dismiss said applications. 4. That the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act, Rajkot held that payment of gratuity Act, 1972 being a Central Act, same will prevail over the State Act and therefore, any scheme contrary to Central Act cannot be implemented and/or one has to act as per the Central Act. Therefore, benevolent scheme should be made applicable subject to the Central Act and such benefits should be given to the employee and accordingly directed the petitioner - Corporation to make payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the gratuity Act and to pay / deposit difference accordingly. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective orders passed by the Authority under the Gratuity Act, Rajkot, the petitioner - Corporation preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed all the appeals confirming the orders passed by the Controlling Authority by holding that provisions of Gratuity Act, 1972 would be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation and is liable to pay amount of gratuity as per the Gratuity Act, 1972. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the respective orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, the petitioner - Corporation has preferred present Special Civil Applications under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation and Ms.Heena Desai and Mr.Bhavin Raiyani, learned Advocates have appeared on behalf of respective workmen / employees of the petitioner - Corporation - original applicants. 6. Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation has mainly contended that both the authorities have materially erred in ignoring the Notification under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 exempting the petitioner - Corporation from applicability of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. 6. Mr.Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation has mainly contended that both the authorities have materially erred in ignoring the Notification under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 exempting the petitioner - Corporation from applicability of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. It is further submitted that when the petitioner - Corporation had framed its own scheme of gratuity for its own employees which is more benevolent to the employees of the Corporation and concerned employees were paid gratuity as per their benevolent scheme which was framed under the relevant rules under the Act of 1962 and published in Official Gazette, both the authorities below have materially erred in directing the petitioner - Corporation to pay amount of gratuity to the respective workmen / employees payable under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 6.1 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation has further submitted that both the authorities below have not properly appreciated the fact that by virtue of and being empowered under the provisions of the Act, 1962 the petitioner proposed and accepted a special scheme for the payment of gratuity for the betterment of its employees and giving further benefits to its employees and the same scheme has been sanctioned by the State Government and duly published in the official gazette and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay amount of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted that both the authorities have not properly appreciated the fact that the petitioner Corporation is not ‘commercial establishments’ as defined under Section 2 Sub-section 4 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and since the petitioner is not a commercial organization, it would not be covered within the meaning of the term ‘commercial establishments’ under Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and consequently the petitioner would not be covered within the purview of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act and therefore, payment of gratuity act, would not be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation. It is further submitted that as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of very petitioner - Corporation that as the petitioner - Corporation has been constituted by law for facilitating all kinds of development for public purpose, therefore, it is not subjected to the liability to pay income tax and therefore, also as the petitioner is not a commercial establishment, it would not be covered within the purview of the payment of gratuity act. 6.2 Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation has relied upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. And State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2007 (1) LLJ 1 in support of his above submission that in view of scheme framed by the petitioner - Corporation for its own employees, the employees of the petitioner - Corporation are not entitled to any amount of gratuity under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow present Special Civil Applications. 7. All these petitions are opposed by Ms. Heena Desai and Mr.Bhavin Rayani, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective applicants - respondents herein. It is submitted that payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a Central Act and same will prevail over any State act, more particularly, when there is conflict between the Central Act and State Act. It is submitted that as rightly held by both the authorities below as the petitioner - Corporation is not exempted from the provisions of payment of gratuity act, 1972 and exemption under the Shops and Establishment Act and/or any other Act shall not ipso - facto apply to the payment of Gratuity Act. It is further submitted that assuming that the petitioner - Corporation has framed their own scheme for gratuity for its own employees and same is permissible in that case also option is with the concerned employee and which ever scheme is benevolent for them they can opt for the same. Therefore, it is submitted that both the authorities have not committed any error in directing the petitioner - Corporation to pay gratuity to its own employees as per the Provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, it is submitted that both the authorities have not committed any error in directing the petitioner - Corporation to pay gratuity to its own employees as per the Provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted that merely because under the provisions of the Income Tax the petitioner might not be held to be “commercial establishment” but so far as payment of gratuity act is concerned, same would be applicable and unless and until there is exemption under the Gratuity Act, 1972, considering definition of “establishment” under the gratuity act, the petitioner - Corporation would be governed by the Provisions of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is further submitted that decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the petitioner - Corporation in the case of Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is submitted that on the contrary it supports the case of the employees - respondents. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss all these petitions. 8. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 9. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is as to when the petitioner - Corporation has framed it own scheme of gratuity for its own employees, whether petitioner - Corporation is still liable to pay gratuity to its own employees payable under the Provisions of the Gratuity Act, 1972 or not ? It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation that as the petitioner - Corporation has framed its own scheme of gratuity for its own employees, permissible under the provisions of GIDC Act, they are not liable to pay amount of gratuity payable under the Gratuity Act, 1972. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation that as the petitioner - Corporation has been exempted by the State Government by issuing Notification under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act from the applicability of Establishment Act, the petitioner - Corporation cannot be said to be ‘establishment’ and therefore, the petitioner - Corporation does not fall within purview of ‘employer’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore, payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to the petitioner. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner - Corporation is not liable to pay income tax as the petitioner - Corporation is not held to be ‘commercial establishment’ and therefore, also provisions of Gratuity Act, 1972, does not apply to the petitioner - Corporation. It is also the case of the petitioner - Corporation that scheme of gratuity framed by the petitioner - Corporation has been sanctioned by the State Government and it has been published in Official Gazetee, provisions of Gratuity Act will not be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation. 10. It cannot be disputed that in different Acts there can be different meaning and definition. In a given case, authority / establishment can be establishment for the purpose of applicability of particular Act and under particular Act said establishment might have been exempted from the purview of a particular Act, however, it is not necessary that said exemption would be applicable with respect to any other Act. The petitioner - Corporation might have been exempted from the provisions of Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and/or the petitioner - Corporation might not have been considered as ‘commercial establishment’ under the Income Tax Act for the purpose of paying income tax but that does not mean that the petitioner - Corporation cannot be said to be employer under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, merely because the petitioner - Corporation is exempted by the State Government by issuing Notification under the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act from the applicability of establishment Act, it cannot be said that the petitioner-Corporation is not ‘employer’ under the Gratuity Act, 1972. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation that as they are exempted by the State government from the applicability of Shops and Establishment Act, 1948 and/or they are not liable to pay income tax as they are not considered ‘commercial establishment’ under provisions of income tax act, payment of gratuity act would not be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation, cannot be accepted. It is required to be noted that it was not the case of the petitioner before the authorities below that they cannot be said to be ‘employer’ within the definition of ‘employer’ under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. It is required to be noted that it was not the case of the petitioner before the authorities below that they cannot be said to be ‘employer’ within the definition of ‘employer’ under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under the circumstances also it is not open for the petitioner - Corporation now to contend that they do not come within the definition of ‘employer’ under the provisions of Gratuity Act, 1972. Even otherwise considering the definition of employer under Section 2(f) of the Act, the petitioner - Corporation can be said to be ‘employer’ under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, provisions of payment of gratuity act, would be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation. 11. Next question which is required to be considered is whether in view of scheme of gratuity framed by the petitioner - Corporation for the benefits of its employees and same is approved by the State Government, whether still employees of the petitioner - Corporation are entitled to gratuity under the payment of act, 1972 ? It is to be noted and it cannot be disputed that payment of gratuity act is Central Act and therefore, whenever there is conflict between the Central Act and/or State Act, Central Act would prevail. Even by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution of India, Central Act will always prevail over the State Act. Even Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, 1972 overrides other enactments in relation to gratuity. Under the circumstances merely because scheme framed by the petitioner - Corporation is accepted / approved by the State Government and merely because framing of such scheme is permissible under the provisions of GIDC Act, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being Central Act will not be applicable, cannot be accepted. It cannot be disputed that payment of gratuity act is a beneficial statute and therefore, even in a case where two views are possible having regard to the purpose said Act seeks to achieve being social welfare and the view which is in favor of the workmen has to be construed. It cannot be disputed that payment of gratuity act is a beneficial statute and therefore, even in a case where two views are possible having regard to the purpose said Act seeks to achieve being social welfare and the view which is in favor of the workmen has to be construed. Therefore, it is right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity and if the employees are of the opinion that amount payable under the Gratuity Act, 1972 is more beneficial to them then the scheme framed by their own employer, (in the present case the petitioner - Corporation), they can opt for getting gratuity under the payment of gratuity act. Similarly, if employee is of the opinion that payment of gratuity under the scheme framed by the employer is more benevolent to them then the gratuity payable under the payment of Gratuity Act, they can exercise their right to receive better terms of gratuity under the said scheme of employer. Even Sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that nothing in Section 4 shall effect right of the employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement / contract with the employer. Therefore, it is submitted that even Sub-section (5) of Section 4 still shall give option to the employee only. Therefore, merely because petitioner - Corporation has framed their own scheme of gratuity for its employees they will not be covered by the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be accepted. 12. At this stage decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Eid Parry (I) Ltd. vs. G.Omkar Murthy and Ors. reported in 2001 (4) SCC 68 is required to be referred to. Apex Court has considered the fact that even when statutory requirements are available provisions of Gratuity Act, 1972 shall prevail. Now so far as the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, considering the controversy in the said case and controversy in the present case, same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Now so far as the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. (Supra) is concerned, considering the controversy in the said case and controversy in the present case, same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court the employee wanted to receive gratuity by opting best terms of both i.e. under the scheme framed by the Bank as well as under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and to that considering Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Section 4(5) of the Act does not contemplate that the workman would be at liberty to opt for better terms of the contract even while availing beneficent provisions of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that workman has to opt for either of them and not the best of the terms of both. Therefore, said decision would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. On the contrary it supports the case of the respondents that option is available to the employee to receive gratuity either under the statute or under the contract (scheme framed by the employer). Under the circumstances, the contention on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation that on framing of the scheme of gratuity by the petitioner - Corporation for its own employees, payment of Gratuity Act would not be applicable to the employees of the petitioner - Corporation cannot be accepted. 13. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that both the authorities below under the payment of Gratuity Act have committed any error and/or acted contrary to the provisions of the statute in allowing the gratuity applications directing the petitioner - Corporation to make payment of gratuity payable under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (i.e. difference). Even both the authorities have also considered the fact that there is no exemption under the Gratuity Act, 1972, in favour of the petitioner - Corporation and therefore, payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would be applicable to the petitioner - Corporation also. 14. For the reasons stated above, all the petitions fail and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. Rule discharged in each of the petitions. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs.