CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE AND BROWN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND ANR. Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY , the case of the Petitioners is that the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the College), was started as a regular educational institution in 1894 by Dr. Dame Edith Brown. The purpose of the College, was to impart education to the women. Brown Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Hospital) was a part of the College and was started simultaneously. The College used to train students for the L.S.M.F. and L.S.M. diplomas. It is now affiliated to the Panjab University. It admits 50 medical students to the first year course of the M.B.B.S., 20 students to the B.Sc. Nursing Course and 40 students to Diploma in Nursing every 'year. Besides, it admits 12 Medical Laboratory students for the diploma recognised by the Government of Punjab. It also trains students in post -graduate classes and at present it la recognised to train students for M.S. (Anatomy), M.D. (Physiology), M.D. and Ph.D. in Pharmacology, M.D. (Pathology), D.C.H. and M.D. in Paediatrics, M.D. (Medicine), D.O.M.S. (Opthalmology). D.M.R.D. and M.D. Radiology and Radio -Diagnosis, D.A.M.D. in Anesthesiology, M.S. (Orthopaedics), M.S. (General Surgery), M.C.H. (Plastic Surgery) D.G.O., M.D. in Obstetrics and Dymaecology and also students for the Master, of National Academy of Medical Sciences which is the highest Indian degree in medical education. As per rules of the Medical Council of India, the minimum number of teaching beds for a College having 50 admissions per year is 800. In addition, additional beds are required for the postgraduate classes. It is alleged that a well -equipped hospital is inevitable concomitant to the College and is, therefore, its inseparable and integral part.

(2.) THE College was covered by the Provident Fund Act, 1925 (hereinafter -called the 1925 Act) and continues to be so. The Provident Fund of the College is looked after by the Board of Trustees. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter called the Commissioner) sent the notice dated 28th January, 1981, under Section 7 -A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act), calling upon the Petitioner to produce it's records before him on 16th February, 1981, for the purposes of conducting an inquiry and determining the amount due. The Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the notice inter alia on the ground that the College is an educational institution and is affiliated to the Panjab University. The Hospital is an integral part of the College and both the institutions are governed by the 1925 Act and therefore, the provisions of 1952 Act are not applicable. The writ petition came up before the Bench on 13th February, 1981, for preliminary hearing. The learned Bench observed that it was directed against the show -cause notice under Section 7 -A of the 1952 Act and according to the counsel, the Petitioner -college did not come within the ambit of the said statute. The matter should be raised before the authority in reply to the show -cause notice. Consequently, it directed the Petitioner to raise the question before the Commissioner. The case was adjourned to 6th March, 1981. In the meantime, the Petitioner raised the question before the Commissioner who held that its objections were meaningless and the Hospital was covered under the 1952 Act. Consequently he adjourned the inquiry to 16th April, 1981, for determination of the amount of provident fund. A copy of the order was produced by it before the Bench on 6th March, 1981 and the case was adjourned to 13th March, 1981. Before that date, the Petitioner filed an amended petition challenging the order of the Com missioner dated 2nd March, 1981, which has been duly admitted. The writ petition has been contested by the Respondents who controverted the allegations of the Petitioner.

(3.) I have given due consideration to the argument of the learned Counsel but regret my inability to accept it. The preamble of the 1952 Act and Section 1(3) read as follows: