BASANT, J.

1. In an area to which the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter referred to the 1983 Scheme), is not made functional, is a headload worker without registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, entitled to work? Is an employer entitled to employ them? What if any, is the consequence of non registration in such an area where the scheme is not in functional operation? These questions arise for consideration in this case.

2. The facts are simple. The petitioner is an employer. There is headload work in his establishment. His workmen have not taken any registration under Rule 26A. Respondent Nos.5 to 11 represent headload workers in the area. We have no specific input as to whether such workmen represented by respondent Nos.5 to 11 have registration under Rule 26A or not. The petitioner has come to this Court with a grievance that his permanent workmen, who admittedly do not have registration under Rule 26A are being obstructed by respondent Nos.5 to 11 in the performance of headload work done by them. This is not justifiable. Police protection is claimed to enable such permanent workmen without registration for undertaking the headload work in the establishment. The employer claims protection of his right to employ such workmen.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. Assistance has been rendered to this Court by the learned standing counsel for the fourth respondent.

4. A perusal of the Kerala Headload Workers Act does not show that there is any prohibition under the Act against the undertaking of headload work by a headload worker, not having any registration. There is no prohibition against the employer employing such unregistered workmen. We have been taken through the provisions of Kerala Headload Workers Act, and we find and it is conceded that there is no such stipulation placing any embargo on headload workers without registration under Rule 26A undertaking headload work (or being employed) in any area to which the 1983 Scheme does not apply. The employer's right to employ such unregistered workers is not in any way fettered by the statutory stipulations.

5. We then turned to the Rules. The Kerala Headload Workers Rules which enables registration under Rule 26A of the headload workers does not also contain any provision placing embargo on headload workers who have no registration under Rule 26A from taking up the headload work in a non-scheme covered area. The employer's right to employ such unregistered workermen is not in any way fettered by the Rules also. We have gone through Rule 26A in detail. The headload worker is given an option - indicated by the use of the expression "may" in Rule 26A(1) to apply for a registration. How such an application is to be considered and how, registration once given can be revoked etc., are all mentioned in Chapter IV of the Rules. To us, it appears to be significant and relevant that there is no embargo placed by any stipulation in the Rules also that a headload worker without registration under Rule 26A cannot be employed by the employer or cannot work in an area.

For the purpose of easy reference we extract Rule 26A(1):-

"Any headload worker may submit his application for registration in Form IX to the Registering Authority concerned, with as many additional copies as there are employers or contractors from whom he claims to work."

6. We have then been taken through the 1983 Scheme. The 1983 Scheme makes it clear by the stipulation of Clause (6) that a headload worker who is not a registered headload worker cannot be allowed or required to work as a headload worker in the area to which the 1983 Scheme applies from the date of commencement of functional operation of the Scheme in the area. We extract below Clause 6(1) for easy reference:-

"No headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the pro