Y. BHASKAR RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Mandamus restraining the vi-Additional Munsif Magistrate from proceeding further in Criminal M. P. No. 2913/87.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the kugler Hospital is a charitable institution run by the funds given by the Church and donations from the public and foreign contributions. It has been serving the community for over 100 years. It is a 150 bedded hospital and it has an out-patient department also. It has been set up mainly for the purpose of helping the needy and the poor who cannot afford to go the regular hospitals. When a dispute as to the nature of the hospital arose in the year 1978, the industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad held that it was a charitable institution. The nature of work performed by it is, whenever a patient comes to the hospital, if it found that the patient requires to be admitted, he is admitted in the hospital. Having regard to the financial capacity of the individual, he is given free treatment also, but, if they are in a position to afford depending on their capacity given a bill, which is definitely less than the actual cost of the treatment, leaving alone the establishment and overheads. It is not a profit making institution. Always, there is a shortfall in the finances and they are met by the church. Regarding out-patients they are treated by the Doctor and medicines are given and the charges are always less than the cost of medicines and consultation charges compared to other private hospitals. Very often, the hospital finds it difficult even to make the out-patients pay. The hospital does not carry on any business, neither it sells any goods or products to any individual much less to the patients. It only treats the patients. The hospital also conducts free eye camps by going around the villages. While so, the labour Officer, Guntur had insisted that the hospital should be covered under the a. P. Shops and Establishments Act. It was pointed out that the hospital was not a commercial establishment and it is a charitable institution serving the community and as such, it does come within the purview of the Act. Inspite of the fact that it was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent that the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act is not applicable to hospitals, the 1st respondent has passed the order in favour of the 2nd Respondent an Aya, whose services were terminated by the petitioner herein, and against the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the passing of the order only when notice was received from the 3rd respondent in Criminal M. P. No. 2913/87. The claim before the 3rd Respondent was to pay a sum of Rs. 8,104/ -. The 3rd Respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the liability of the petitioner or the applicability or otherwise of the A. P. Shops and Establishments Act as it is only an Execution Court. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the institution is a charitable hospital. It has been serving the community and helping the poor and needy people. When the institution is a charitable institution, it cannot be said that it comes under the a. P. Shops and Establishments Act. Therefore the order passed directing the petitioner to register the institution under the Shops and establishments Act and threatening to launch prosecution for non-compliance of the direction is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the proceedings have to be quashed.

( 4 ) HEARD the learned Government pleader.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the contentions, a perusal of the definitions of commercial establishment under Section 2 (5) and shop under Section 2 (21) of the A. P. Shops and establishments Act, 1966 is necessary, which are as follows:"commercial establishment means an establishment which carries on any trade, business, profession or any work in connection with or incidental or ancillary to any such trade, business or profession o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document