NOORUL ISLAM EDUCATION TRUST Vs. ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Trust, which is running a self-financing Dental College at Aralummoodu in Neyyattinkara Taluk. As part of that college, there is a Dental Hospital also. The question raised in this Writ Petition is regarding the applicability of the provisions of various labour laws to the said hospital.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are the following. The petitioner runs a Dental College, after getting all the requisite sanctions/permissions/affiliation from all the statutory authorities. It is also registered under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality (Registration of Private Hospitals and Private Para-medical Institutions) Rules, 1997, as a private hospital. While so, the Assistant Labour Officer, Neyyattinkara issued Exhibit P-5 inspection note, calling upon the petitioner to produce certain registers to be maintained under various labour laws, before him. The petitioner filed Exhibit P-6 objection, stating that the Government of Kerala have exempted private hospitals and allied institutions from the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, as per the notification G.O.(Rt) No. 2885/2005/LBR dated October 19, 2005, for a period of two years. So, it was prayed that further action pursuant to the said notice may be dropped. But, the Assistant Labour Officer replied by Exhibit P-7 notice dated February 25, 2006, stating that the provisions of various labour laws are applicable to private hospitals also. So, the, petitioner was directed to appear before him along with the registers on March 1, 2006. The petitioner again submitted Exhibit P-8 reply, Later, ExhibitP-9 inspection note was issued to the petitioner, pointing out the violations of certain labour laws committed by it. This Writ Petition is filed, challenging Exhibit P-9.

(3.) According to the petitioner, by virtue of the aforementioned notification issued by the, Government under Section 5 of the Kerala' Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 on October 19, 2005, all the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act have been exempted, as far as private hospitals are concerned. In view of the said exemption, it is contended that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 are also not applicable to private hospitals. In support of the said submission, the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in Thomas Eapen v. Asstt. Labour Officer, 1993 2 LLJ 847. It is a decision wherein learned single Judge of this Court held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are not applicable to private hospitals.