Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is an Ayurvedic Physician and the Proprietor of the Swatantra Pharmacy, Chalakudy. He seeks to quash the coverage notice Ext. P-1 dated 9121964 and the letters Ext. P-3 dated 18-1-1965, and Ext. P-5 dated 20 21965 issued by the respondent, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum and further seeks to restrain the respondent from enforcing the Employees Provident Funds Act and Scheme against the petitioner. 2. S.1(3) of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, applies the Act to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule.1 and in which 20 or more persons are employed. S.2A of the Act which was inserted by the amending Act 46 of 1960 with effect from 3112 1960 reads as follows: "2A. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment." 3. The term 'factory' is defined in S.2(g) of the Act as follows:-"factory" means any premises, including the precincts thereof, in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on, whether with the aid of power or without the aid of power." Schedule 1 of the Act was added to by notification dated 3rd September 1956, by virtue of the powers under S.4 of the Act. One of the items so added to the schedule by the said notification, reads: 1. Heavy and fine chemicals including XX X X '(iv) Medical and pharmaceutical preparations."' 4. It is admitted that the petitioner's pharmacy has branches in several places and that the total number of workmen employed in all the branches together would exceed 20; and that the number of workmen in the head office at Chalakudy alone is 7. But the petitioner claims that manufacturing process is carried on only at the head office in Chalakudy and that the other branches are merely engaged in dispensing the Ayurvedic medicines manufactured at the Chalakudy office. It is further contended that Ayurvedic preparations are neither "medical" nor "pharmaceutical" preparations so as to fall within the relevant entry in schedule I noticed above. The coverage notice Ext. It is further contended that Ayurvedic preparations are neither "medical" nor "pharmaceutical" preparations so as to fall within the relevant entry in schedule I noticed above. The coverage notice Ext. P-1 informed the petitioner that the Swatantra Pharmacy with all its branches, came under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 engaged in the manufacturing of Pharmaceuticals (Ayurvedic medicines), and called upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act and the scheme thereunder. The petitioner replied by a communication (copy filed as Ext. P-2. denying the claim of the establishment falling within the Schedule.1 of the Act, and pointing out that 20 or more persons had not been employed in the establishment). His claim was repudiated by the respondent by a communication filed as Ext. P-3. The petitioner made a further detailed representation, a copy of which has been filed as Ext. P-4. The contentions put forward by him were not accepted, and by a communication Ext. P-5 dated 20th February 1965, the petitioner was requested to comply with the requirements of the Act and legal proceedings were threatened on default. 5. The first contention of the petitioner that manufacturing process is carried on only in the Head Office, at Chalakudy and that the other branches merely dispense the medicines made at Chalakudy, seems to me to be unacceptable. By S.2A it is declared that where an establishment has branches, such branches are to be treated as parts of the same establishment. 'Factory' is defined to mean any premises in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on. Reading the provisions together, it seems to me that the petitioner's head office together with all its branches would constitute an establishment which is a factory and that a manufacturing process is carried on in a part of the said factory. It thus seems to fall squarely within S.1 sub-section (3) of the Act. 6. The next argument of the petitioner's counsel was that in the part where a manufacturing process is carried on only seven workmen were employed. In view of S.2A of the Act, what has to be reckoned is the totality of workmen employed in all the branches and not the number of workmen in that branch or Department located where the manufacturing process is carried on. So understood, the petitioner's establishment does employ more than 20 workmen. In view of S.2A of the Act, what has to be reckoned is the totality of workmen employed in all the branches and not the number of workmen in that branch or Department located where the manufacturing process is carried on. So understood, the petitioner's establishment does employ more than 20 workmen. This indeed, as already noticed, was not disputed. 7. The question most prominently pressed was whether the petitioner's establishment can be said to be engaged in any industry specified in schedule I. The petitioner's argument was that manufacture of Ayurvedic preparations would not fall within the entry in the schedule "heavy and fine chemicals", nor even within the inclusive part of it, "medical and pharmaceutical preparations". The Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that Ayurvedic preparations would fall within the terms "medical and pharmaceutical preparations." It is unnecessary to delineate the scope and amplitude of the expressions "Heavy and Fine Chemicals". These expressions have been used in an inclusive sense so as to comprehened "medical and pharmaceutical preparations". "Pharmaceuticals" as defined in Chambers' 20th Century Dictionary means 'pertaining to the knowledge or art of preparing medicines". In Concise Oxford Dictionary the expression 'Pharmaceuticals', is defined as: "of or engaged in, pharmacy; of the use or sale of medicinal drugs". The same idea is brought out by the other Dictionaries to which my attention was drawn, and to which I think it unnecessary to refer. It is difficult for me to hold that "medical and pharmaceutical preparations" will not include Ayurvedic medicines which constitute an important branch of medicinal preparations in this country. The Government Pleader referred to the wide definition of 'medicinal preparations' under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955. Quite apart from the statutory definition afforded by the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations Act, 1955, I am of the view that in the popular sense, "medical and pharmaceutical preparations" would take in Ayurvedic medicines also. (See the discussion in Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadalaya, Dacca (P) Ltd., & others v. Union of India and others (AIR. 1963 SC. 622). See also the decision in Nageswara Rao v. The State of Madras (AIR. 1954 Mad. 643) from which it is seen that Ayurvedic preparations were treated as articles required for 'medicinal purpose', and therefore to be covered by a licence under S.18 of the Madras Prohibition Act). 1963 SC. 622). See also the decision in Nageswara Rao v. The State of Madras (AIR. 1954 Mad. 643) from which it is seen that Ayurvedic preparations were treated as articles required for 'medicinal purpose', and therefore to be covered by a licence under S.18 of the Madras Prohibition Act). Being so, the coverage notice issued to the petitioner and evidenced by Ext. P-1 and subsequent communications are valid and proper. 8. The O. P. fails and is dismissed; I make no order as to costs. Dismissed.