Judgment :- Petitioner is the Managing Partner of Kadampuzha Hospital, Kanjirappally. Respondents 3 to 5 are working as nurses in the said institution. The first respondent issued three notices, Exts.P1, P1 (a) and P1 (b) to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act in the cases of respondents 3 to 5. The petitioner sent a reply Ext. P2 stating that hospitals were not covered by the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act. Thereafter a notice was issued by the first respondent stating that respondents 3 to 5 were not allowed prenatal leave as contemplated under the Act and requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1031.25 should not be directed to be paid to T. A. Thressiakutty, the fifth respondent towards maternity benefit and medical bonus. On receipt of this the petitioner sent Ext. P4 reiterating his contention and pointing out that the Government have issued notification No. LDS 2156/57 L & LAD dated 17-4-1957 published in the Kerala Gazette. dated 23-4-57 exempting establishments in the erstwhile Travancore-Cochin area like doctors consulting rooms, dispensaries attached to doctors consulting rooms and nursing homes, hospitals and other institutions for the treatment of the sick, the infirm, the destitute or the mentally unfit. However over-ruling the objection filed by the petitioner the first respondent issued Exts. P5, P5(a) and P5(b) directing to pay an amount of Rs. 1024.50 towards maternity benefit to third respondent, an amount of Rs. 963.50 to the fourth respondent and Rs. 1031/50 to the fifth respondent towards maternity benefit and medical bonus. These orders were issued under S.17 of the Maternity Benefit Act. Exts. P6, P6(a) and P6(b) are demand notices issued pursuant to these orders. In this original petition the petitioner challenges the orders Exts. P5 series and P6 series. 2. The main contention raised in the original petition is that in view of the notification LDS 2156/57 L & LAD dated 17-4-1957 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-4-57, hospitals, and nursing homes are permanently exempted from all provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125. P5 series and P6 series. 2. The main contention raised in the original petition is that in view of the notification LDS 2156/57 L & LAD dated 17-4-1957 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-4-57, hospitals, and nursing homes are permanently exempted from all provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125. The said notification reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act 1125 (ACT IX of 1125) and in supersession of the Travancore-Cochin Notification L 6/7100/52/DD dated 16th July 1952, the Government of Kerala hereby exempt permanently from all the provisions of the said Act the following classes of establishment in the former Travancore-Cochin area of the State, Namely: (1) Doctors' consulting rooms; (2) Dispensaries attached to Doctors' consulting rooms; and (3) Nursing Homes, Hospitals and other institutions for the treatment or care of the sick, the infirm, the destitute or the mentally unfit". 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is admitted in paragraph 7 that such a notification has been issued. However it is contended that the exemption itself would show that Hospital, Dispensaries, etc. are establishments as defined in Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. It is further averred in the counter affidavit that Maternity Benefit Act is applied to establishments as per a notification which is marked as Ext. R1. The' said notification, Ext. R1, reads as follows: "Whereas under the provision to sub-section (1) of S.2 of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, the State Government may with the approval of the Central Government after giving not less than two months notice of its intention of so doing, by notification in the Gazette, declare that all or any of the provisions of the said Act shall apply to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise. And, whereas the Government of Kerala have given notice of its intention for applying all the provisions of the said Act to the establishments as defined in clause (8) of S.2 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 by notification in the Gazette as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.2 of the said Act (Central Act 53 of 1961). Now, therefore in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of S.2 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 the Government of Kerala with the approval of the Central Government hereby declare that all the provisions of the said Act shall apply to the establishments as defined in clause (8) of S.2 of the Kerala Shops & Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. 4. It is true that by virtue of this notification the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act have been made applicable to all the establishments as defined in clause (8) of S.2 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. Clause (8) of S.2 says that 'establishment' means a shop or a commercial establishment. It is not disputed that this expression will take in hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries. But the contention raised is that permanent exemption is granted for hospitals, nursing homes and dispensaries by virtue of notification No. L.Dis 2186/57/LAD dated 17-4-1957 quoted above and the said notification has not been cancelled. It is true that the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125 was repealed and reenacted by the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. A provision similar to S.6 of the Travancore - Cochin Shops and Establishments Act, 1125 is enacted in S.5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. So this notification will be consistent with the provisions of the latter Act and so long as the said notification has not been cancelled, it may be taken as having been issued under the latter Act by virtue of S.23 and shall continue in force until it is cancelled. Moreover proviso to S.36 states that anything done under the repealed Act which could have been done under the latter Act shall be deemed to have been done under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. In the circumstances learned counsel contended that the exemption still holds good and therefore Exts. P5 series and P6 series are illegal and are liable to be quashed. 5. I feel that there is great force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. In the circumstances learned counsel contended that the exemption still holds good and therefore Exts. P5 series and P6 series are illegal and are liable to be quashed. 5. I feel that there is great force in the contention raised by the learned counsel. In regard to Payment of Wages Act a similar notification was issued applying the provisions of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act and a single judge of this court had occasion to consider in Sherthallai Sree Narayana Medical Mission General Hospital v. Damodaran Krishnan Unni, 1975 KLT 572 whether the provisions of the payment of Wages Act are applicable to hospitals, nursing homes and ispensaries which were exempted under the notification referred to above in exercise of powers conferred under the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act. Learned Judge took the view that since the exemption notification issued has not been canceled and a provision similar to S.6 of the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act is enacted in S.5 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establish- ments Act, the notification issued under the former Act will hold good so long as that notification has not been cancelled and that notification will be treated as having been issued under the latter Act by virtue of the proviso contained in S.36 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 6. In a similar situation a Single Judge of this Court in State of Kerala v. Adichan Sasi, 1975 KLT 839 held that a notification issued under the Travancore Forest Act should be deemed to be a notification issued under the Travancore-Cochin Forest Act. and Kerala Forest Act by virtue of saving clause contained in the Kerala Forest Act and S.23 of the Interpretation and General Clauses. 7. Learned Government Pleader heavily relied on a Division Bench decision of this court in Jayachandran v. State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 903 where question arose whether a private hospital, dispensary or pharmacy will come within the purview of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It was held that a hospital, dispensary or pharmacy would. be understood in common parlance wither as an establishment or as a shop which are added as item 21 to the schedule of the Act. It was held that a hospital, dispensary or pharmacy would. be understood in common parlance wither as an establishment or as a shop which are added as item 21 to the schedule of the Act. That decision cannot have any application to this case as the addition shops and establishments was not a referral legislation in that case and the effect of exemption notification No. L.Dis 2186/57/LAD dt.17-4-1957 issued under the Travancore-Cochin Shops and Establishments Act never came for consideration of the Division Bench. In the circumstances I do not find any force in the contention that Jayachandrans case is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. It is lastly contended by Government Pleader that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal under S.17(3) of the Maternity Benefit Act and on this ground this original petition is liable to be dismissed. Having entertained the original petition, I do not think that I will be justified in dismissing the original petition for the reason that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, especially in the nature of contention raised in the original petition. The forgoing discussion would show that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of exemption contained in notification No. L.Dis 2186/57/L & LAD. Accordingly orders Exts. P5, P5(a) and P5(b) and consequential demand notices issued as per Exts. P6, P6(a) and P6(b) are quashed and original petition is allowed.