JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity of Act, 1972, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. 4/2010, by which the Appellate Authority has allowed the said Appeal preferred by the respondent herein and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority dated 07.11.2009. 2. Petitioner herein was serving with the respondent from 1979 onwards and he came to be retired/superannuated with effect from 04.07.2008. He was paid a sum of Rs. 70,074/- towards the amount of gratuity considering 20 years of service and not considering his service in 1979 to 1983, 1991 and 1992 on the ground that in those years he was serving as Badli worker and he did not complete 240 days. Therefore, petitioner approached the Controlling Authority, Ahmedabad and the Controlling Authority, Ahmedabad vide order dated 30.10.2009 passed in case No. 3/26/09 held that petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 94599.90 ps. towards gratuity and a sum of Rs. 72,884/- was paid and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a difference i.e. Rs. 21,715.90 ps. With 10% interest. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 dated 30.10.2009, the respondent preferred Appeal No. 4/2010 before the Appellate Authority under the Act and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, (1997) 1 LLJ 475 the Appellate Authority allowed the said Appeal by holding that petitioner's service rendered during the years 1979 to 1983, 1991 and 1992 cannot be considered for the purpose of calculating the gratuity as, in all those years, the petitioner has served as badli worker and has not completed 240 days and accordingly, the Appellate Authority allowed the said Appeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority and holding that the petitioner is entitled to only a sum of Rs. 70,074/- and the petitioner is paid more than that i.e. 72,884.70 ps.... 70,074/- and the petitioner is paid more than that i.e. 72,884.70 ps.... Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Ahmedabad dated 21.05.2010 in Appeal No. 4/2010, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Yogen Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Kantibhai Hirabhai & 2 Ors. reported in 2010 II CLR 208 and relying upon the said decision, it is submitted that as held by this Court, daily wager service and break in service is to be considered for the purpose of calculating the amount of gratuity. Therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority. No other submissions have been made. 4. Having heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and considering the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that Appellate Authority has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramachhar Benimadhav Mishra, Considering the decision of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the Appellate Authority, it appears that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case and no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority in allowing the said Appeal relying upon the aforesaid decision. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Kantibhai Hirabhai & 2 Ors. reported in 2010 II CLR 208 by the petitioner is concerned, it appears that the binding decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Fine Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd. (Supra) was not pointed out to the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge had no occasion to consider the said binding decision. Under the circumstances, the subsequent decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioner is per in-curium. 5. Under the circumstances, the present petition deserves to be dismissed as no illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority in allowing the said Appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed.