K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.

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 Paramedical Institutions) Rules, 1997, as a private hospital. While so, the Assistant Labour Officer. Neyyattinkara issued Ext. P-5 inspection note, calling upon the petitioner to produce certain registers to be maintained under various labour laws, before him. The petitioner filed Ext. 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 19-10-2005, 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 Ext. P-7 notice dated 25-2-2006, 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 1-3-2006. The petitioner again submitted Ext. P-8 reply. Later, Ext. P-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 Ext. 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 19-10-2005, 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. Asst. Labour Officer (1993 (2) K.L.T.241). It is a decision wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act are not applicable to private hospitals.

4. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the impugned action taken by him in issuing Ext. P-9 inspection note. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter found it difficult to follow the decision in Thomas Eapen v. Asst. Labour Officer (1993 (2) K.L.T. 241) and therefore, referred the writ petition to the Division Bench.

5. Heard. Section 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act empowers the Government to grant exemption to any establishment from all or any of the provisions of the Act, if the same is required in public interest. In this case, it is not in dispute that there was an exemption order issued by the Government on 19-10-2005 under Section 5 of the Act. The said notification reads as follows:

S.R.O. No. 978/2005.__ In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (Act 34 of 1960) the Government of Kerala being satisfied that public interest so requires, hereby exempt the following establishments, from the provisions of the said Act for a period of two years from the date of publication of this notification in the Gazette, namely:

1. Doctors consulting rooms.

2. Dispensaries attached to Doctor's consulting rooms.

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

6. The provisions of the Maternity Benefit A