K B JACOB Vs. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts briefly stated are:

(2.) THE petitioner in 1970 started private practice as a general physician at Cochin. His consulting rooms were attached to his residence. This was only a "consulting clinic". THEre was no facility to accommodate in-patients. He was working alone, with equipment just the minimum required to carry on his practice. He continued this kind of practice till March 1974.

(3.) THIS was the state of affairs when the petitioner received a notice from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, that the hospital started by him in 1974 is an establishment within the meaning of 'medical practitioners and other medical specialists' shown as entry 42 in the list of Establishments to which the Act had been made applicable by notification No. G. S. R. 1398 dated 17-9-64 and since it completed five years from the date of commencement on 31-3-1975, employing 20 or more persons, it is liable to pay the contributions to the 'fund' established under the Provident funds Act. The petitioner in reply to the said notice stated that the hospital was started only in 1974 and that it started functioning with all equipments only in January 1975 and therefore it was entitled to the exemption from payment of the Provident Fund in terms of S. 16 (1) (b) of the Provident Funds act for the period of five years from 1975. He had also stated that in any event, he was entitled to claim the exemption from the date of inauguration of the hospital namely, 21-12-1974. The Regional Commissioner however, was not agreeable with the above argument because according to him, the hospital established in 1974 could be treated only as an extension of the establishment covered by entry 42 in the list of establishments notified by the Central government in the year 1964. He accordingly entered a finding that the hospital is nothing but a continuation of the establishment which the petitioner was running since 1970 and consequently rejected the claim of the petitioner for the'infancy exemption' provided for under S. 16 (1) (b) of the Provident Funds act. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent who by Ext. P12 order has affirmed the order of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner. It is this order Ext. P12, that is under challenge in this O. P.