Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Sunil Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Miss Sumati Rani Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents-workmen.

2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 28/29.3.2008 passed by respondent No. 3, Prescribed Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “1948 Act”) holding that petitioner has paid less than the minimum wages to concerned workmen and, therefore, it had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,87,314/- to all the workmen-applicants who have filed Misc. Case No. 57 of 2007 alongwith compensation of the same amount and cost of Rs. 300/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a ‘hospital’ and, therefore, would not be covered by entry “private clinic and private medical shops” which has been ignored by Prescribed Authority. He further contended that out of 22 workmen only three were examined by petitioner and rest did not appear and, therefore, the petitioner was denied opportunity to cross-examine them. He further submitted that some of the workmen had given affidavits to petitioner that they were only part time employees and these affidavits were placed before Prescribed Authority but the same have not been considered at all. He drew my attention to Annexure-20 to the writ petition which is an affidavit filed by Sunita Prakash, Nurse employed in petitioner’s establishment, who is respondent No. 19 in the writ petition.

4. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for respondents-workmen contended that entry 63 of earlier notification dated 19.12.1983 issued under Section 27 of 1948 Act was substituted vide notification dated 2.4.1992 and, therefore, all the private hospitals were covered by the provisions of 1948 Act. She further submitted that petitioner did not dispute the employment of respondents-workmen but their defence was only that they were part time employees. However petitioner failed to give any evidence and, therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition warrants no interference. She submitted that a finding of fact has been recorded by Prescribed Authority which has not been shown perverse or contrary to material on record. She further submitted that an employee working from 7.30 in the morning till 1.30 afternoon, i.e., for about six hours, assuming what the petitioner has said about Sunita Prakash is correct, cannot be said to be a “part time employee”. She also pointed out that the Prescribed Authority has recorded a finding of fact that affidavit was obtained by petitioner-employer under undue influence and pressure.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

6. The first question is whether 1948 Act is applicable to petitioner’s hospital or not.

7. There is no doubt about the fact that petitioner’s institution is running a ‘hospital’ and not ‘clinic’. This Court also has no manner of doubt that the word “clinic” would not mean or cover a “hospital”. This question was considered in Christian Hospital, Azamgarh v. State of U.P. and another, 2007(4) AWC 3935 with reference to notification dated 19.12.1983 and the Court held that the term “clinic” would not include “hospital” with which interpretation I have respectful concurrence and have no reason to take a different view.

8. However, the matter does not end here. It is the own admission of petitioner that subsequently a notification was issued on 2.4.1992 under Section 27 of 1948 Act substituting entry 63 of notification dated 19.12.1983 in the following manner.

Earlier entry reads as under :

“Employment in Private Clinics and Private Medical Shops.”

Substituted entry reads as under:

“Employment in Private Hospitals, Clinics and Medical Shops by whatever name called.”

9. This notification, therefore, amended notification dated 19.12.1983 and entry “private clinics and private medical shops” stood deleted and changed by words “private hospitals, clinics and medical