The prayer in the Original Petition is to quash Exts.P1 to P3 and Ext.P5, whereby the question of coverage under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was answered against the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the petitioner-Society will not come within the purview of the above Act and for consequential reliefs.

2. The petitioner (Kottayam District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd.) is a Society registered under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which is running a C.T. Scan Unit, a Neethi Medical Store and a Clinical and Pathological Lab. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no treatment is being offered to any patient; that the petitioner is not at all a Hospital and hence that the petitioner will not come within the purview of coverage under the Act and the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme).

3. Pursuant to the inspection made by the statutory authorities, the defects noted were made known to the petitioner, vide Ext.P2, pointing out that the petitioner had failed to comply with the various requirements contemplated under the statute and they were sought to the cured. On receipt of Exts. P1 and P2 proceedings, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation which was considered by the first respondent and passed Ext.P3 order, directing the petitioner to implement the provisions of the Act and the three Schemes to all its 20 employees with effect from February, 2001 and to report compliance within the specified time, lest it should lead to quantification of the dues and realization, to be followed by consequential proceedings including by way of penalty/damages.

4. On challenging Ext.P3 proceedings before this Court by filing O.P.No.25291 of 2001, it was observed that the petitioner had an alternate remedy by way of review before the very same statutory authority, the first respondent. Accordingly, the Original Petition was disposed of enabling the petitioner to file a review petition before the first respondent within three weeks and directing the said authority to have it considered and finalized by passing a speaking order thereon, in accordance with law, of course, with notice to the petitioner. Pursuant to the said verdict, the review petition filed by the petitioner was considered by the first respondent and after threadbare analysis, the first respondent passed a detailed order as borne by Ext.P5, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Original Petition.

5. The specific case of the petitioner, as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner Society is not an establishment notified under section 1(3) (b) of the Act and hence it is beyond the purview of coverage. It is further stated that in view of Section 16 of the Act and also the provisions of Sections 61 and 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, read with Rule 58 of the Rules, the petitioner cannot be brought within the purview of coverage. The finding and reasoning given by the first respondent for sustaining Ext.P5 are also subjected to serious attack.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents brought to the notice of this court that, by virtue of the specific terminology used in the concerned notification issued by the Central Government enabling the Government to bring the desired establishments within the purview of the Act, invoking the power under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act., the petitioner-Society stands very much covered and that the challenge raised in the Original Petition is totally wrong and misconceived. The learned counsel also produced copies of the relevant notification bearing No.G.S.R.1082 dated 15.09.1973 published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3 (i) dated 29.09.1973 to sustain the submission. The learned counsel further states that the petitioner would stand covered under the