JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for quashing of Annexure 3, the order dated 19.10.1994 by which the respondent No. 2 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) has levied a sum of Rs. 1,87,019.00 as Provident Fund contribution in respect of employees employed with the Urusuline Hospital at Lohardaga. 3. According to the petitioner, the impugned order, apart from being an ex parte assessment, is also illegal inasmuch as it has incorrectly dealt with the main issue namely that the Nuns and Sisters who have taken a vow of poverty are not covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred for the sake of brevity as the said Act). According to Mr. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforementioned Hospital is a part of the Lohardaga Charitable Ursuline Society which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and it being a religious order, there is no relationship of employer and employee inter se amongst the aforementioned Sisters and Nuns and consequently they should not have been brought under the sweep of the said Act. 4. The first point in relation to the impugned order being ex parte does not find favour with this Court inasmuch as from a perusal of the impugned order itself it will be apparent that notices were issued but there was no response whereafter summons were also issued giving opportunity to the establishment to produce records, but that was also not attended to. One Sister Blanche represented the establishment, but did not produce any record. The impugned order also would show that she had submitted written argument but did not produce the original registers etc. despite number of opportunities having been given. In that view of the matter, it cannot, strictu sensu, be said that the order was passed ex parte. 5. However, the other argument of Mr. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in religious congregation or Order, the Sisters and Nuns take a vow of poverty and there is actually no relationship of employer and employee inter se between them, appears to be an argument which does need to be decided by the Government at the appropriate level. 6. Mr. S. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that in religious congregation or Order, the Sisters and Nuns take a vow of poverty and there is actually no relationship of employer and employee inter se between them, appears to be an argument which does need to be decided by the Government at the appropriate level. 6. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the definition of the word employee as appearing under Section 2(f) is an all pervasive definition and it contains within its sweep the Nuns and Sisters also. Such a submission without there being any valid supportive reasonings cannot be accepted because in order to bring a person within the definition of the word employee, it must be proved as a matter of fact that such a person is drawing salary or is being paid salary which ensures to his/her benefit. No such evidences are on record and therefore by straightaway submitting that Nuns and Sisters of a religious order are also employees does not appear to be justified. Prima facie, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the parties hereto should be given an opportunity to decide this issue once and for all strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the petitioners are given liberty to approach the Government invoking its power to exempt as provided under Section 17 of the said Act. Such invocation must be made not later than four weeks from today. Upon receipt of such an invocation, the appropriate authorities of the Government shall consider the matter in accordance with law and do the needful as provided in the Act by either notifying that such category of persons are exempted or, are not exempted. In the event, they come to a conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve exemption then it goes without saying that the authorities concerned shall give reasons in accordance with law so as to enable the petitioners to test the legality or otherwise of such reasonings at an appropriate later stage, if so advised. The petitioners, in the mean time, shall deposit the assessed amount and it also goes without saying that if ultimately it is found that the petitioners are entitled to exemption, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners. The petitioners, in the mean time, shall deposit the assessed amount and it also goes without saying that if ultimately it is found that the petitioners are entitled to exemption, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners. The entire exercise on the part of the Government upon receipt of the invocation referred to above shall be completed not later than six months from the date of receipt thereof. 8. With the aforementioned observations, this writ application stands disposed off. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Application stands disposed off.