Alexander Thomas, J.

1. Aggrieved by the impugned Exts.P1, P3 and P5 proceedings issued by the respondent-Employees' Provident Fund authorities deciding on the coverage of the petitioner's institution as envisaged under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appellant-Kottayam District Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., had preferred the Writ Petition, O.P.No.14067/2002 before this Court praying to quash the said impugned orders and for declaration that the appellant/petitioner Hospital Society will not come within the purview of the above said Act. The learned Single Judge, as per the impugned judgment rendered on 25.2.2009, after an exhaustive analysis of the factual and legal aspects of the matter, came to the considered conclusion that the challenge made in the Writ Petition is without any substance and the learned Single Judge thus upheld the validity of the impugned orders. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the writ petitioner-Hospital Society has preferred this intra court appeal by resorting to the remedy conferred under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. The main contention urged by the appellant-Society is that the Hospital Society will not satisfy the requirements of the notification under No.GSR 1082 dated 15.9.1973 and the earlier notification as per GSR No.1393 dated 17.9.1964 issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the above said Act and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. Another contention that has been raised is that the above said Act (referred for short as “E.P.F. Act”) will not apply to the appellant-society in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(c) of the E.P.F. Act, as the appellant-Society is a cooperative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, in view of the specific provisions made in Sections 61 & 80A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 58 of the Rules framed under the State enactment.

3. Heard Sri. T.A.Shaji, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Hospital Society and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.P.F. Authorities.

4. The petitioner-Society is said to be a society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and is running a Computed Axial Tomography (C.A.T/C.T.) Scan unit, a Neethi medical store and a clinical and pathological laboratory and it is the specific case of the petitioner that no treatment facility is being offered to any inpatient and that there is no provision for hospitalization by way of admitting inpatients in the said institution and that the petitioner is not a 'hospital' or a 'clinic' as envisaged in the above said notifications issued under Section 1(3) (b) of the E.P.F. Act. After conduct of the inspection by the respondent statutory authorities, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 proceedings requiring rectification of the defects pointed out therein and after consideration of the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent had passed Ext.P3 order dated 7.8.2001, directing the petitioner-Society to implement the provisions of E.P.F. Act and the three schemes to all its twenty employees with effect from 1.2.2001. The proceedings as per Ext.P3 herein were challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition as O.P.No.25291/2001 before this Court, wherein this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 19.2.2002, directed that the petitioner is to invoke the review petition remedy for consideration of the grievances against the said impugned order and direction was issued to the respondent-E.P.F. authorities to consider such review petition and to take decision thereon in accordance with law. In compliance with Ext.P4 judgment, the respondent-E.P.F. authorities after affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, considered the entire matter in depth and passed the impugned Ext.P5 order dated 24.4.2002 holding that the petitioner Society is in fact co