Ramachandran, J.

According to the petitioner, in view of the prevailing arrangements that workers on permanent basis are employed in their establishment at Puthencruz, attending to all the works available, any claims by outsiders for a right to the unloading work that may be there, is not legally tenable. The company imports and distributes various chemicals from other States of hazardous nature, and these require expert handling. The chemicals and compounds come in trucks of Tanker Lorries and the commodities are got unloaded by the regular workers in the establishment. On an average, 5 to 6 lorry loads of materials come in a month. The commodities are stored in their godown and they are in due course packed into smaller containers/units, according to the requirement of the customers. There are 9 permanent workmen on regular rolls, and this had been the pattern of work for the last about 6 to 7 years.

2. However, demand had come from respondents 4 to 6, trade unions, whereby the petitioner has been requested that the loading and unloading work of goods could have been carried out only by members represented by them and since the petitioner did not have any registered headload workers in the establishment, he was disabled from employing any such workmen for the work. The petitioner was not prepared to come in terms with the above demand. It is stated that from the month of May, 2005 onwards, use of force commenced and there has been trespass and obstruction. The petitioner, exasperated, had requested the police to come to their help, but as there was no assistance and the obstruction was practically pushing them to a position of stand still, by this writ petition it is requested that appropriate orders are to be passed, whereby the right of the petitioner for carrying on the work in their discretion, by employing regular workmen for all available work, is to be upheld and police protection from interference of respondents 4 to 6 or any strangers is directed to be granted.

3. With reference to the averments in the writ petition, as also supplemented by the reply affidavit, Mr. K. Surendra Mohan appearing for the petitioner submits that the right as above has been recognized by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (1998 (2) KLT 732-FB) as also Sebi Manavalan v. S.I. of Police (2001 (2 KLT SN page 78 – Case No.99). According to the petitioner, the workmen on regular rolls are predominantly attending to packing work and other incidental activities on a routine basis and on stray occasions when lorry loads arrive, they attend to the unloading work also. Inflammable and tozic chemicals of hazardous nature are being dealt with and this also is a reason which compels the petitioner to make use of the expertise of the own workmen, as otherwise, establishment will be answerable in respect of injuries that may be sustained by persons, who are inept in handling such materials.

4. The Full Bench decision referred to a circumstance where the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, Rules of Scheme may not apply to an establishment. It should be an arrangement, where regular workmen were also attending to the casual jobs of loading or unloading, though their principal engagement as in connection with the other works that are available in the establishment. Counsel submits that the principal job of their regular workers is packing of the bulk consigned goods as smaller packets and containers and therefore the observations of the Court in the said judgment are applicable on all fours. The Kerala Headload Workers Act is not applicable because of the above factual situation and therefore he has a right to make use of his own workmen. The requirement of registration is not there.

5. However, the claim as above is controverted by Sri. Paulson C. Varghese, who had entered appearance on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. He submits that from December 2000 onwards by a Gazette Notification (Ext.