ORDER : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard learned Advocate Mr. H.S Munshaw for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya for respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioner corporation is challenging order passed by controlling authority granting amount of gratuity Rs. 1,02,375. by order dated' November 10, 2008. That order was challenged by workman before appellate authority and appellate authority granted same amount with 10 per cent interest with effect from May 17, 2003 and appellate authority has granted Rs. 1,06,470.00 being amount of gratuity of 26 years by order dated October 5, 2009. 3. Sole contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for petitioner is that service as daily wager as well as break in service has been considered for the purpose of payment of gratuity amount in favour of respondent workman. Controlling authority has considered facts as per pay slip given by petitioner to workman, of May, 2000 where date of joining is November 1, 1977 and in column of pay, it was mentioned permanent job, therefore, it was held that he has completed 26 years and submission made on behalf of establishment that he has completed 16 years service has not been accepted. Contention raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for petitioner is that service rendered as daily wager cannot be taken into account and break in service also, where workman was either remaining absent or was not provided work by-employer, such period cannot be taken into account, that should have to be excluded for benefit of gratuity amount but that has not been excluded by controlling authority and controlling authority considered entire period of 26 years considering last wages; one day Rs. 273.00, total amount comes to Rs. 1,02,375.00 and accordingly that amount has been directed to be paid by petitioner to workman. 4. Question of daily wager service as well as break in service is to be considered in light of; definition u/s 2(c) read with Section 2-A of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Recently, this aspect has been examined by Karnataka High Court in case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority 2009 II CLR 788. Head Note. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -Sections 2-A, 14- Gratuity - Continuous Service - what it implies? - On his retirement, the claim for additional amount of gratuity for Rs. Recently, this aspect has been examined by Karnataka High Court in case of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority 2009 II CLR 788. Head Note. Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 -Sections 2-A, 14- Gratuity - Continuous Service - what it implies? - On his retirement, the claim for additional amount of gratuity for Rs. 32034/-with interest by respondent No. 3 was granted by Controlling Authority and upheld by Appellate Authority - Hence this petition -Held that every period of break in continuous service, which does not qualify for payment of gratuity, has to be evidenced by express order to that effect, passed in accordance with standing orders or rules governing employees as provided in Section 2-A of the Act -Requirement being mandatory exclusion of periods of absence as breaks in service, on basis of attendance register and leave account extract, in absence of express order passed by authority, to treat as break in service, is to be held illegal - No reason, to interfere. 5. Therefore, according to my opinion, Controlling Authority has rightly calculated amount of gratuity on the basis of length of service counted by workman but 10 per cent interest was not awarded in favour of workman and for that, appeal was preferred by workman wherein appellate authority has rightly granted interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum upon amount of gratuity of 26 years which comes to Rs. 1,06,470. with effect from May 17,2003. 6. Interest awarded by appellate authority being interest as statutory compulsion, for that, appellate authority has no discretion in case of H. Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd., AIR 2003 SC 1526 for that also, appellate authority has not committed any error which requiring interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Therefore, contentions raised by learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw cannot be accepted as order passed by Controlling Authority is not challenged by petitioner. Same are, therefore, rejected. Therefore, this petition is dismissed accordingly because no interference of this Court is required in exercise of powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.