The common question that arises in these cases is as to whether “trainee nurses” being engaged in hospitals, which also conduct nursing courses, would satisfy the definition of “employee” under Section 2(f) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.14751/2017 is the Sivagiri Sree Narayanan Medical Mission Hospital, which is being run by the Sivagiri Madom, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioner, it is running a Mission Hospital for effectuating charitable purposes of the Sivagiri Madam founded by Sree Narayana Guru and that the said hospital is also offering nursing courses, like B.Sc. Nursing, etc. As per the regulations of the statutory regulatory authorities like the Nursing Council constituted as per the relevant Central Enactments and State Enactments, a nursing student, who completes the course of study, is also obliged to complete training, which is akin to internship as envisaged in MBBS/BDS students in order to equip them to become full fledged professional practitioners in the field of nursing. To effectuate the obligation of the training institutions like the petitioners, earlier they used to execute bond as between the hospital, which is a charitable institution, and the student concerned, laying down the terms and conditions of the training courses. Later, the Government of Kerala had issued G.O.(M.S.).No.893/2013/LAB dated 23.5.2013 [Exhibit-P1 in W.P.(C).No.14751 of 2017] wherein it is stipulated that the duration of such practical training is one year and that the number of such trainees shall not exceed 25% of the regular nursing staff of that institution and such trainees are not entitled for any of the benefits and allowances payable for regular employees. That students who have undergone General Nursing should be paid stipend. The stipend payable for General Nursing students is Rs.5,100-6,000 and that for B.Sc Nursing is Rs.5,310-6,500, etc. It is the case of the petitioner-Sivagiri Medical Mission Hospital that in view of the obligations which flow from the curriculum of such nursing course and in view of the obligation of the above said Government Order, they have offered training to about 28 nursing students at the relevant point. That the 1st respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had issued Exhibit-P2 dated 31.10.2016 calling upon the petitioner to given their explanation as to whether the said 28 trainees are to be covered for PF contribution as envisaged in the Employees' Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme. The petitioner had given Exhibit-P3 reply dated 13.12.2006 clearly stating therein that the training process was only on the basis of Government Order as stated above and that they are not regular employees, who are entitled for wages or salary and that the said training programme is only part of their course of study necessary for equipping them to full fledged practitioners in the nursing profession and further on completion of the training programme, the petitioner-hospital is not employing them in their establishment and that on leaving the hospital after training the institution is not aware about their further whereabouts. Accordingly, it was urged that none of the 28 persons concerned can be said to be employees within the meaning of Employees Provident Fund Act and Scheme as they are only trainees and requested the respondents to drop further action in that regard. Exhibit-P4 representation dated 7.2.2017 was also given by the petitioner in that regard. Thereafter, the 1st respondent had issued the impugned Exhibit-P7 order dated 8.3.2017 holding that such 28 persons are employees as understood in Sec.2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the petitioner institution is legally liable to pay the PF contribution for these 28 persons as well. The prayers in W.P(C).No.14751 of 2017 are as follows:

“(i) call f