DEVINDER GUPTA, C. J. ( 1 ) A practising advocate of the High Court in this petition filed as Pll brought to the notice of this court about the on-going strike by the junior Doctors working in various government Hospitals of the State and seeks a direction to declare the strike organised by the 4th respondent-association and its members as illegal and alternatively to direct respondents 1 to 3 to pass appropriate orders prohibiting the continuance of the strike under Section 3 of the A. P. Essential Services Maintenance act, 1971 and to pass such orders as may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances. ( 2 ) THE petition was taken up for hearing on 8-1-2004. Notice was directed to be issued to respondents. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 learned Advocate general took notice and prayed for taking up the case the very next day. Notice was directed to be served upon the Chairperson of the 4th respondent Association intimating that the matter will be taken up by the court on 9-1-2004. ( 3 ) THE petitioner narrated the role of junior Doctors in General Hospitals saying that there are ten Government Medical colleges and two Dental Colleges in the state offering admission to medical course in about 1450 seats and dental course in about 80 seats every year. In addition, there are 15 private un-aided non-minority Medical colleges and ten Dental Colleges offering admission to 1750 seats in Medical course and 840 seats in Dental Course. The students studying Post Graduate Course in medicine including those undergoing Post gaduate Diploma Courses and House surgeons are called Junior Doctors and are paid stipend by the State Government. Government is spending considerable amount on each student for completion of m. B. B. S course or B. D. S. Course as also on the House Surgeons and Post Graduates. Recently, there has been increase in the intake of Post Graduate seats in medicine. Stipend is paid to the House Surgeons and post Graduate students by the State government with the intention that their services would be utilised in Government hospitals as part of their training and they shall assist the Senior Doctors in Operation theaters, in labour wards and in emergency wards. Junior Doctors also conduct periodical rounds in the wards to assist the senior Doctors, therefore, their services to patients in Government Hospitals is indispensable. Junior Doctors also conduct periodical rounds in the wards to assist the senior Doctors, therefore, their services to patients in Government Hospitals is indispensable. The staffing pattern in government Hospitals has also been fixed taking into consideration the services being rendered by the Junior Doctors. This is a public duty enjoined upon the Junior Doctors studying in Government Colleges. ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter highlighted the fact that Respondent No. 4-association in the month of November, 2003 submitted a memorandum of their demands with a threat to go on strike in case the same are not met and ultimately a strike call was issued on 10th December, 2003 and that with effect from 12th December, 2003 the Junior doctors stopped attending to their hospital duties. The petitioner alleged that major unsolved demands of the Junior Doctors are those with which Respondent No. 4 or its members are not directly concerned and in any case it is always open to them to have redressal of their demands before a court of law. Instead of approaching the court of law, they have resorted to strike. The petitioner emphasised the evil consequences of the strike and its effect on the patients getting treatment in various government Hospitals and the fact that effective steps have not so far been taken by the Government to curb the strike by invoking appropriate provisions of law though the junior doctors were under the control of State Government. The petition was thus filed in public interest seeking that a direction be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to act in accordance with law by declaring the strike as illegal and prohibiting the members of the Respondent No. 4 association to remain on strike. ( 5 ) THE respondents were duly served. We had taken up the matter for hearing on 9th January, 2004. We heard sri Ramakrishna Ready learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ramesh ranganathan learned Additional Advocate- general for the respondents 1 to 3 and sri K. G. Kannabhiran, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 4. ( 6 ) ON behalf of Respondent No. 4 it was submitted that the demands of Respondent no. 4 are such with which junior doctors, namely, the members of Respondent No. 4 association are directly concerned and their interests are vitally affected. ( 6 ) ON behalf of Respondent No. 4 it was submitted that the demands of Respondent no. 4 are such with which junior doctors, namely, the members of Respondent No. 4 association are directly concerned and their interests are vitally affected. The demands are such which cannot be agitated in a court of Law, therefore, there was no other option left open to them except to resort to strike and they are justified in asserting those demands. It was vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that there is total inaction and laxity on the part of the State government in redressing the grievances of the Junior Doctors. More than 30 days had elapsed when demands were submitted and only thereafter decision was taken to resort to strike work. Mr. Kannabhiran with reference to each demand tried to justify the same on merits. ( 7 ) ON behalf of the State Government stand was taken that the members of respondent No. 4 association were not at all justified in resorting to strike. It was stated that the on-going strike by the junior doctors had to some extent affected the functioning of the teaching hospitals in the State, but the government was taking all the necessary steps to ensure smooth and effective functioning of the hospitals and providing medical care to poor and the needy. Government has always been willing to discuss the problems concerning the education and other facilities required to be provided to the junior doctors. It was pointed out that there are 16 demands in the charter of demands submitted by the Respondent no. 4 association and most of the said demands were such on which there has already been adjudication by the Supreme court of India. Some demands really pertain to policy matters of the State Government for which no grievance can be made by respondent No. 4 and other demands were already under consideration and the proper course for resolution of the demands would either be through a dialogue with the government or by other means and not by resorting to strike. The agitational approach of the junior doctors, in addition to causing inconvenience to the public disrupting the proper functioning of the Government hospitals, was also adversely affecting the career of the junior doctors. The agitational approach of the junior doctors, in addition to causing inconvenience to the public disrupting the proper functioning of the Government hospitals, was also adversely affecting the career of the junior doctors. As per the regulations of the Medical Council of India, 75% attendance in each subject is compulsory, provided the student has 80% attendance in non-lecture teaching i. e. seminars, group discussions, tutorials, demonstrations, practicals, hospital postings, bed side clinics etc. failing which the students cannot be permitted to appear in the University examinations. It was further arged that the Government had already impressed upon the members of respondent No. 4 association, studying in government hospitals about the futility to continue the strike. Only with a view not to adversely affect the career of the students, the Government had exercised considerable restraint and refrained from exercising any powers, which, if invoked, would definitely be to their prejudice and cause disruption in their studies thereby not only affecting their interests but also their parents as well. ( 8 ) AFTER we heard the learned counsel for the parties, we made it clear to both the sides that in this petition filed as PIL, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the question about the legality or validity of the action of Respondent No. 4 and its members in resorting to strike or on the merits or demerits of their charter of demands. We also made it clear that we would also not be inclined to go into the questions as to whether respondent No. 4 association and its members were justified in continuing with the strike or the strike is the only remedy available to them for redressal of their grievances or that there is any inaction on the part of the State Government in solving the problem or any laxity in not resorting to various provisions of law prohibiting the members of the Respondent No. 4 association from continuing on strike or what provisions of law be resorted to for bringing an end to the stalemate. We also explicitly rnade it clear to the parties that it will not also be appropnate for us to say which of the demands in the charter of demands put forth by the Respondent No. 4 association can or cannot be met by the State Government or whether some of the demands already stand settled by the Supreme Court in various decisions rendered and there cannot be further adjudication or discussion thereon. ( 9 ) AFTER explaining about the nature and scope of the petition filed as PIL and the stand on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that till date their view points had not so far been properly and sympathetically considered by the representative of the State Government who had hoard them and taking note of the stand taken by the State Government that it is still ready and willing to have a thorough discussion on the demands of Respondent no. 4 association, we impressed upon respondent No. 4 through their counsel that the court would be willing to step in and would ensure that their view points are duly considered and presented in the right perspective before the Government. We also made it clear that such stepping by the Court would only be on the condition that the members of Respondent No. 4 will forthwith call off the strike unconditionally. Learned senior Counsel submitted that Respondent no. 4 would be willing to call off the strike but for which purpose it will be necessary to call a meeting of the members of Respondent no. 4 association and sought time. Accordingly, the case was adjourned and was taken up on 23-1-2004 on which date, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4, on instructions, submitted that Respondent no. 4 was ready to call off the strike and prayed that a Committee be constituted to examine their demands and submit its report to the Government with its recommendations. We again made it clear to respondent No. 4 that we will formally appoint a Committee, only after the strike is called off by Respondent No. 4. Accordingly undertaking was given on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the strike will be called off on the same day. ( 10 ) TO-DAY we have taken up the case for constitution of Committee since we are informed that the strike was called off unconditionally on 23-1-2004. Accordingly undertaking was given on behalf of respondent No. 4 that the strike will be called off on the same day. ( 10 ) TO-DAY we have taken up the case for constitution of Committee since we are informed that the strike was called off unconditionally on 23-1-2004. Learned additional Advocate General however pointed out that after the undertaking was given to the court unconditionally, respondent No. 4-association did call off the strike on 23-1-2004, but there some sporadic incidents did take place on some date in which the members of respondent No. 4 association formed a human chain and attended to their duties wearing black badges, which goes contrary to their assurance given to the court. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-association on instructions submitted that he had no information of such incident having taken place and expressed regrets in case such an incident has happened which according to him might have happened due to communication gap and assured that such incidents will not happen. ( 11 ) IT was also brought to our notice by the learned Addl. Advocate General that during the period of strike in addition to abstaining from duty by the members of respondent No. 4-association, some of the junior doctors misbehaved in an unruly fashion lowering the dignity of the institutions and brought disrespect to the medical profession. They misbehaved with the principals/superintendents and other senior staff members of the hospitals by locking them in their office rooms, damaging furniture and also abusing them. Therefore, a decision was taken by the Government to initiate disciplinary action against such junior doctors and students. He brought to our notice that a list containing 21 names of such students involved in the incident was sent to the Principals of Gandhi Medical College, hyderabad, Osmania Medical College, hyderabad and Guntur Medical College, guntur for appropriate action. These facts were brought to our notice during the progress of the case, which of course are not admitted by the learned counsel for respondent No. 4-association saying that the members of Respondent No. 4-association did not resort to the alleged activities but some outsiders must have joined the members of respondent No. 4 association when they were on strike and must have caused some damage and resorted to illegal activity. ( 12 ) BE that as it may, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4-association, on suggestion of the Court, agreed that the 21 students whose names find mention in the govt. Memo. No. 24705/e2/2003 dated 20-1-2004 addressed to the Principals of the three Medical Colleges will tender their apology for the misbehaviour attributed to them. Though such acts of nepotism and misbehaviour by the student community particularly by those undergoing medical course cannot be appreciated in case the facts alleged are true but as there has been happy ending to the stalemate at our intervention, we have impressed upon respondents 1 and 2 that on submission of apologies by the respective students, the proposed action against them be dropped to which the learned Additional Advocate general has frankly and rightly so agreed. ( 13 ) IT was also brought to our notice that because the students and the junior doctors being on strike for more than a month, there is possibility of a shortfall in their attendance because of advancement of the dates of examinations by respondent No. 3-University. It was urged that if the examinations were to take place on the dates as scheduled earlier in June, 2004 there will be no difficulty for the members of respondent No. 4 association and other students to make up the shortfall, if any, in the attendance thereby avoiding any punitive action against them. Since decision has been taken to advance the examinations due to the forthcoming elections and examinations are likely to be conducted in the month of March, there is likelihood of the junior doctors and medical students being prevented from appearing in the examinations. Learned Additional Advocate general submitted that this was a matter between the University and the Medical council of India. ( 14 ) AS Medical Council of India is not made a party to the writ petition, on an oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Medical Council of India is impleaded as 5th respondent. Necessary correction be made in the cause title. Notice on behalf of Medical Council of India has been accepted by Mr. Niranjana Reddy, advocate. Necessary correction be made in the cause title. Notice on behalf of Medical Council of India has been accepted by Mr. Niranjana Reddy, advocate. ( 15 ) CONSIDERING the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to direct the 3rd respondent that in case the examinations have been advanced by the University and there is any short fall in the lectures because of the advancement of the examinations, it will be but appropriate to consider the desirability to hold separate special or supplementary examinations to enable the junior doctors and students involved in the strike to appear in those examinations so that there is no disruption or adverse effect on their career. Dates of the supplementary examinations or separate examinations will be so fixed that the same be treated as a part of the regular examinations being conducted by the university. Such decision will be taken by the university, if necessary in consultation with the Medical Council of India and in case it is necessary to grant any permission, the medical Council of India will also consider the case sympathetically and pass appropriate orders thereupon, as observed above. In case any relaxation is required to be granted, the same will also be so granted by the University and the Medical Council of india. ( 16 ) CONSIDERING the views which were projected during the course of submissions made before us by the counsel for the parties and the nature of controversies raised which might result in some adverse impact on the career of the students carrying on medical studies and the members of the respondent No. 4 association and also keeping in view the interests of the general public at large, we consider that it would be but appropriate and desirable to have a broad based committee which should go into the view points of Respondent No. 4 association as also that of the Government and then submit its recommendations on the unsolved demands to the Government. Both sides suggested names of renowned persons having expertise in the field for appointment as members of the Committee and ultimately agreed on three names as experts. It was agreed that in all four members be nominated as the members of the Committee including a Senior Secretary of the State Government as Member secretary. It was also suggested that a retired Judge be nominated to head the committee. It was agreed that in all four members be nominated as the members of the Committee including a Senior Secretary of the State Government as Member secretary. It was also suggested that a retired Judge be nominated to head the committee. Accordingly, the following committee headed by Sri Justice b. P. Jeevan Reddy, Retired Judge of the supreme Court of India, is constituted by us to duly consider the view points of respondent No. 4 and of the State government and examine the demands of the Respondent No. 4 association and dwell on the other issues arising, as noticed below and to submit its recommendations to the government. 1. Sri Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, retd. Judge of the Supreme Court of India, Chairman. 2. Sri Rajarammohana Rao, Ex. Vice chancellor, Nagarjuna University, syamala Nagar, Guntur, Member. 3. Dr. C. N. Habibullah, Gastroenterologist, former Director of Medical education, Hyderabad, Member. 4. Professor S. S. Reddy, Retired superintendent, Osmania General hospital, Hyderabad. , Member. 5. Principal Secretary, Finance, government of Andhra Pradesh, hyderabad, Member. ( 17 ) PRINCIPAL Secretary, Finance would also function as member Secretary of the committee. The Committee will consider and examine the Charter of demands submitted by respondent No. 4 association to the Government containing sixteen issues gist of which is incorporated in para 4 of the counter-affidavit of Respondents 1 and 2 dated 17-1-2000, after taking into consideration the view points of the respondent No. 4 association and of the state Government through their respective representatives and also if necessary the views of Medical Council of India and the university. The Committee is also authorised and requested to go into the other issues if it will be necessary as to how the shortfall in the lectures or the period of strike is to be treated in case in the meanwhile the university will not take decision of conducting or holding special or separate examinations. In case necessity thereof would arise other issues if any cropping up out of the consequences of members of respondent No. 4-association and students going on strike will also be examined. ( 18 ) THE Committee will submit its recommendations to the Government. The government, respondents 3, 4 and 5 will ensure to make available to the Committee any material or record which might be required by it while examining the issues involved including charter of demands of respondent No. 4. ( 18 ) THE Committee will submit its recommendations to the Government. The government, respondents 3, 4 and 5 will ensure to make available to the Committee any material or record which might be required by it while examining the issues involved including charter of demands of respondent No. 4. The circumstances do require that the deliberations of the committee are conducted expeditiously and report is submitted as early as possible. We would accordingly request the Committee to consider the desirability of submitting its report and recommendations to the government as early as possible so that the government will have enough time to take appropriate decision thereupon within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the Committee. A copy of the report of the Committee will be furnished to the parties. In case Respondent no. 4 would feel aggrieved by the decision to be taken by the Government or if any of their demands would still remain unresolved; it would be open for Respondent No. 4 to take appropriate steps for redressal of their grievance in accordance with law only. ( 19 ) THE State Government will ensure. that expeditious steps are taken to fix appropriate place/venue for conduct of the proceedings by the Committee and to make available to the Committee all reasonable secretarial assistance for which State government will take appropriate decision within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a coy of this order from the court. The State will also ensure that the chairman and the members of the committee are adequately provided for with all the amenities and the requisite facilities, as may be necessary, including conveyance, secretarial assistance, payment of travelling allowances etc. to enable it to expeditiously execute the task assigned to it and will take due care in meeting all the expenditure for holding the meetings of the Committee. Remunearation to the Chairman and members of the Committee will be fixed by the State Government in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee. ( 20 ) WITH the directions aforementioned, we hope and expect that there will be no further cause surviving. However, while parting with this order disposing of writ petition and appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, mr. Ramesh Ranganathan, learned additional Advocate General, mr. K. G. Kannabhiran, Mrs. Y. Padmavathi and Mr. ( 20 ) WITH the directions aforementioned, we hope and expect that there will be no further cause surviving. However, while parting with this order disposing of writ petition and appreciating the assistance rendered by Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, mr. Ramesh Ranganathan, learned additional Advocate General, mr. K. G. Kannabhiran, Mrs. Y. Padmavathi and Mr. Niranjan Reddy, we would like to emphasize that the impact of such strikes by students and medical community who are directly connected with the hospitals is totally different from strike in a factory or trading establishment. Ailing patients cannot be left waiting or un-attended. Hospital activity is not the same as the lifeless functioning of machines in factory, or movement of trading material or other forms of commerce. Almost all the activities in relation to hospital are such as require constart and incessant attending and care and, therefore, unlike a factory or trading establishment, the parties cannot be permitted to be deserted by striking doctors. Unlike financial losses, the loss of life or limb cannot be recouped. Hospitals are also public utility service within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act. It was also the intention of Parliament, as is envisaged by the 1982 amendment to the definition of industry under the Industrial disputes Act, that hospitals have been excluded from the scope of definition of industry and from the purview of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Even though the said amendment has not been brouht into force but it does reinforce the position that "hospitals" have to be treated as a class apart from "industry". These observations we are making only to highlight and bring forth to the notice of the Junior Doctors and the student community undergoing medical courses that in future they will be well advised and understand the realities and their duty to the ailing patients in particular and the society at large before resorting to any such activity. This is our earnest hope and desire. ( 21 ) THE Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( 22 ) THE Registry is directed to communicate copy of this order to the chairman and Members of the Committee forthwith by Special Messenger/courier service as the case may be. Copies be also supplied to learned counsel and the parties.