SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Ker) 126

Judges : P.K.SHAMSUDDIN
Thomas Eapen - Appellant
Versus
Asst.Labour Officer - Respondent
Case No : O.P.No. 95Q5 of 1989
Decided On : 03/17/1993
Advocates Appeared :
S. Sankara Subban For Petitioner Baby Issac & Govt. Pleader (V.J. John) For Respondents

The main legal point established is that the exemption notification for hospitals under the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act remained valid and applicable under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, entitling the petitioner to the benefits of the exemption.

Headnote:

Maternity Benefit Act - Hospital Exemption - S.17 of the Maternity Benefit Act - S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act 1125 - S.5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1960 - Exemption Notification - Legal Interpretation

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Managing Partner of a hospital, challenged notices alleging non-compliance with the Maternity Benefit Act. The petitioner contended that hospitals were permanently exempted from the Act under a government notification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the exemption notification for hospitals under the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act was still valid and applicable, thus quashing the challenged orders and allowing the original petition.

Issues: Interpretation of exemption notifications under the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act and the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, and the applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act to hospitals.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exemption notification for hospitals remained valid and applicable under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of the exemption.

Final Decision: The court quashed the challenged orders and allowed the original petition in favor of the petitioner.

Judgment :-

Petitioner is the Managing Partner of Kadampuzha Hospital, Kanjirappally.

Respondents 3 to 5 are working as nurses in the said institution. The first respondent issued three notices, Exts.P1, P1 (a) and P1 (b) to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act in the cases of respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner sent a reply Ext. P2 stating that hospitals were not covered by the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act. Thereafter a notice was issued by the first respondent stating that respondents 3 to 5 were not allowed prenatal leave as contemplated under the Act and requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1031.25 should not be directed to be paid to T. A. Thressiakutty, the fifth respondent towards maternity benefit and medical bonus. On receipt of this the petitioner sent Ext. P4 reiterating his contention and pointing out that the Government have issued notification No. LDS 2156/57 L & LAD dated 17-4-1957 published in the Kerala Gazette. dated 23-4-57 exempting establishments in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area like doctors consulting rooms, dispensaries attached to doctors consulting rooms and nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions for the treatment of the sick, the infirm, the destitute or the mentally unfit. However over-ruling the objection filed by the petitioner the first respondent issued Exts. P5, P5(a) and P5(b) directing to pay an amount of Rs. 1024.50 towards maternity benefit to third respondent, an amount of Rs. 963.50 to the fourth respondent and Rs. 1031/50 to the fifth respondent towards maternity benefit and medical bonus. These orders were issued under S.17 of the Maternity Benefit Act. Exts. P6, P6(a) and P6(b) are demand notices issued pursuant to these orders. In this original petition the petitioner challenges the orders Exts. P5 series and P6 series.

2. The main contention raised in the original petition is that in view of the notification LDS 2156/57 L & LAD dated 17-4-1957 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-4-57, hospitals, and nursing homes are permanently exempted from all provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125. The said notification reads as follows:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act 1125 (ACT IX of 1125) and in supersession of the Travancore-Cochin Notification L 6/7100/52/DD dated 16th July 1952, the Government of Kerala hereby exempt permanently from all the provisions of the said Act the following classes of establishment in the former Travancore-Cochin area of the State, Namely:

(1) Doctors' consulting rooms;

(2) Dispensaries attached to Doctors' consulting rooms; and

(3) Nursing Homes, Hospitals and other institutions for the treatment or care of the sick, the infirm, the destitute or the mentally unfit".

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is admitted in paragraph 7 that such a notification has been issued. However it is contended that the exemption itself would show that Hospital, Dispensaries, etc. are establishments as defined in Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that Maternity Benefit Act is applied to establishments as per a notification which is marked as Ext. R1. The' said notification, Ext. R1, reads as follows:

"Whereas under the provision to sub-section (1) of S.2 of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, the State Government may with the approval of the Central Government after giving not less than two months notice of its intention of so doing, by notification in the Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of the said Act shall apply to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. And, whereas the Government of Kerala have given notice of its intention for applying all the provisions of the said Act to the establishments as







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top