JUDGMENT Saral Srivastava, J. Heard Amit Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Since, these three writ petitions involve common question, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgement. 3. For convenience, the facts are being delineated from Writ C- No. 37690 of 2022. 4. The petitioner petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 22.12.2020 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972/Assistant Labour Commissioner, U.P. Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Prescribed Authority') whereby Prescribed Authority has awarded gratuity to the respondent no.1 for the period 06.01.1977 to 02.03.1983 i.e. the period during which respondent no.1 was employed as daily wager. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent no.1 is not entitled to any gratuity for the period of service rendered by him as daily wager. Accordingly, it is submitted that Prescribed Authority has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that section 4(2) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1972') which provides for payment of gratuity does not envisage that the period rendered as daily wager during service shall be excluded for the purpose of computation of gratuity. It is further submitted that Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 is unambiguous and clear and provides that employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of 15 days wages. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Bali Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ-A No.56926 of 2017. 7. I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 8. section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity. Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 relevant in the context of the present case is reproduced herein below:- "4 Payment of gratuity. - (1)... (2). 7. I have considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 8. section 4(2) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides for payment of gratuity. Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 relevant in the context of the present case is reproduced herein below:- "4 Payment of gratuity. - (1)... (2). For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of [an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year], the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season. [Explanation. -In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen.]" 9. A reading of Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 does not reveals that employer shall not be liable to pay gratuity to the employee for the period of service rendered by him as daily wager. Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 clearly provides that employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned, for every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months. 10. So reading of Section 4(2) of the Act, 1972 makes it manifestly clear that employer is entitled to payment of gratuity for the period of service rendered by him. Said provision does not envisage that gratuity shall not be paid to the employee for the period he has worked as daily wager. 11. This Court in paragraph 10 of the judgement in the case of Bali Ram Yadav (supra) has held as follows:- "10. Said provision does not envisage that gratuity shall not be paid to the employee for the period he has worked as daily wager. 11. This Court in paragraph 10 of the judgement in the case of Bali Ram Yadav (supra) has held as follows:- "10. Petitioner has also challenged the action of respondents in denying benefit of gratuity for the period of petitioner's temporary working from 1978 to 1981. section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which regulates payment of gratuity to the employees of the Corporation clearly includes temporary working also for payment of gratuity. Since the petitioner has worked from 1978 onwards in the Corporation, which is also not in dispute, therefore, the period of petitioner's working from 1978 to 1981 cannot be excluded for the purposes of determination of gratuity payable to writ petitioner. The respondents, therefore, shall re-calculate the gratuity payable to petitioner, keeping in view the observations made above and also by this Court in Writ-C No. 6971 of 2017 (U.P.S.R.T.C. through its R.M. Vikasnagar Kanpur v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 28.8.2019, within a period of two months." 12. In such view of the fact, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority. 13. Accordingly, all the writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.