ABDUL REHIM, J.

1. The petitioner herein is a dealer of Two Wheeler and Three Wheeler vehicles manufactured by M/s. Balaji Automobiles. There are 5 permanent workers engaged by the petitioner in their stocking yard, assigned with the work of driving down two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles from big Trailer Trucks, in which such vehicles are brought. According to the petitioner, a ramp is provided, which will be attached to the Trailer Trucks, and the two wheelers and three wheelers will be driven down from the Trucks through the ‘sliders’ provided on the ramp. It is stated that all the 5 employees of the petitioners are hobbling valid driving licences and they have got requisite experience and expertise to drive/ride the vehicles from the Trucks to the ground. It is further stated that no manual or physical unloading work is involved in getting down the vehicles from the Trailer Trucks. It is also contended that the 5 permanent workers of the petitioner are registered employees, under the ESI Act and the Provident Fund Act.

2. Recently, the petitioner had shifted their stock yard to a new premises, which is a property having an extent of 70 cents surrounded by compound wall on all sides and protected under a locked gate. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents 3 and 4 are putting claims that their members alone are entitled to do the work of unloading of the vehicles from the Trucks and they are creating obstructing to the works of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, no Headload work is involved in the process of driving/riding down the vehicles from the Trucks and the respondents 3 and 4 have no manner of right to claim such works. With respect to the obstructions caused, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the 2nd respondent. Since no protection was granted, this writ petition is filed.

3. When the writ petition came up for admission, this court directed the petitioner to implead the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. Accordingly, Additional 5th respondent was impleaded. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 it is contended that, the petitioner started functioning in the present premises only before one month. It is stated that the scheme formulated under the Kerala Headload Workers Act has been extended in operation to the area in question and the unloading of Motor Vehicles from the carriers is a work coming within the purview of the Headload Workers Act. Therefore the petitioner is not entitled to do such works by engaging workers who are not registered under provisions of the Headload Workers Act, Rules, and Scheme formulated thereunder. It is further contended that the area in question is coming within pool No. 40, constituted under the scheme and there are 30 workers included in the above said pool. It is also contended that out of the 30 workers, 7 are having valid driving licences, authorizing to drive two wheeler and three wheeler vehicles. It is disputed that the work of bringing down vehicles from the Trucks needs expertise. According to respondents 3 and 4, the workers in the pool alone have got experience in similar works since they were doing such works for other dealers. All the contentions in the counter affidavit was refuted by the petitioner through a reply affidavit filed on 14.6.2011.

4. As directed by this court the Chief Executive of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board have filed a statement, in which it is contended that an amendment was brought to the definition of ‘Headload Worker’, under Section 2 (m) of the Kerala Headload workers Act 1978, incorporating that the workers engaged in the process of unloading through ‘sliding’ are also Headload workers. It is contended that the amendment was intended to bring labourers who are engaged in the work of unloading materials from vehicles through the method of ‘sliding’ through ramps, within the ambit and scope of Headload Worker.

5. On the basis of the above statement,