Koshy, J.

Petitioner is running a parcel service business. The activities of the petitioner’s are mentioned in para 3 of the Writ Petition which is as follows:-

“The parcel service business is one where the goods collected by the petitioner, have to be transported to various places as destined by consignors and consignees and vice versa. Apart from the lorries belong to Alleppey Parcel Service, hired lorries of the Alleppey Parcel Services and other goods vehicles are also coming to the petitioner’s establishment. So also the goods already collected are transported through the same or various vehicles. The business parties are bringing goods to the petitioner’s establishment vide various vehicles like box auto, tempo van, hand carts and also lorries. All the goods coming to the premises of establishment, vide various vehicles, are unloaded by the petitioner and his attached workers. So also the loading of goods after releasing from the establishment.”

2. The main case of the petitioner is that Alleppey Parcel Service is a motor transport undertaking and, therefore, it is covered under the Motor Transport Workers Act. Hence, permanent employees who are exclusively engaged for loading and unloading work are covered under the above Act and, therefore, they need not be registered under the Kerala Head load Workers Act. It is their further contention that three persons are employed by them for doing the loading and unloading work and they applied for registration of the above three workers but identity card was issued to only one worker. Applications for the other two workers were refused and appeals are pending. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent Union and their workers are creating obstruction to their work demanding headload work and therefore the petitioner wants police protection from this court. An interim police protection was granted provided the loading and unloading work is done only by the registered worker. Thereafter, the Writ Petition was amended for a declaration that registration under R.26A of the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules or any other allied provisions under the Kerala Head Load Workers Act and Rules are not required since the workers are governed by the provisions under the Motor Transport Workers Act, Rules and Schemes made thereunder.

3. The main question to be considered is whether the application of the Kerala Headload Workers Act is excluded in the petitioner’s case. Admittedly, the petitioner’s establishment is situated in a covered area under the Head Load Workers Act, 1978 and the Kerala Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare Scheme 1983. It is also admitted that the petitioner’s establishment at Palakkad is not registered under the Motor Transport Workers Act and the workers of the petitioner are not registered under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Act, 1985. They are also not enrolled as members of the Welfare Fund Scheme under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers’ Welfare Fund Scheme, 1985.

4. The Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 is a Central Act and it is a Special Act provided for the welfare of the motor transport workers and for regulating the conditions of their work as can be seen from the preamble off the Act. The contention of the petitioner is that being a Central Act provisions of that Act will prevail over the State Act and the petitioner’s workers are covered under the Act. Non-registration of the petitioner’s establishment and the workers under that Act only entail penal consequences but if that Act is applicable, the Kerala Headload Workers Act can have no application in that establishment and its workers. On the contrary, the 4th respondent Union as well as the Standing Counsel for the Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board submitted that as far as the Headload Workers Act is concerned it is a Special Act to regulate the employment of the headload workers in the State of Kerala, the opening portions of the Act reads as follows:-

“An A