Ashok Menon, J.

The petitioners are before us seeking police protection against party respondents 3 to 6 for allegedly interfering with the loading and unloading work by petitioners 2 to 4 in the furniture manufacturing unit and showroom belonging to the 1st petitioner.

2. The 1st petitioner's proprietorship is engaged in manufacturing furniture and selling them in the name and style 'A One Furniture' . It is stated that the manufacturing unit is situated at Naduvath Nagar, Arookutty and the show room for displaying the furniture manufactured is situated at Aroor on Cherthala-Aroor N.H. Byepass. The registration obtained for the unit under the Kerala VAT Rules is Ext.P1 series. The licence issued by the Panchayat is Ext.P2. A licence was separately issued for the show room situated at Aroor, and that is Ext.P3. The furniture manufactured in the unit will have to be loaded and unloaded at both the places. The 1st petitioner is engaging his own workers for the headload work, which includes loading and unloading of timber, moving of logs, cutting timber and furniture, loading and unloading inside and outside the factory, as well as loading finished furniture to the show room and then unloading them at the show room for being displayed and then delivered it to the customers. Utmost care and caution is required for the work to be done in the business premises of the 1st petitioner. Otherwise, there is every likelihood that the furniture may get damaged, and that is the reason why he has engaged his own workers for such work. The 1st petitioner has registered workers of his own under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 and they have been issued with Ext.P5 series identity cards by the Assistant Labour Officer as per Ext.P4 order. Altogether, he has five workers, who have been issued identity cards. For the purpose of new show room at Aroor, the 1st petitioner requires the services of three of his registered workers, who are petitioners 2 to 4. He issued notice to them as per Ext.P6 series and they are all willing and happy to work in the show room. However, when they are engaged in the loading and unloading work at the show room of the 1st petitioner, a group of people belonging to three different unions, represented by respondents 3 to 5 obstructed the work. They insisted that only workers from the pool are permitted to do the headload work in the area where the show room is situated. The business of the 1st petitioner was thus interrupted and a complaint was made before the 1st respondent as Ext.P7, which did not yield any result. The 1st petitioner and other workers are depending for their livelihood on the work of the furniture show room and the petitioners were left with no other option but to approach this Court. The petitioners seek protection from the party respondents 3 to 5.

3. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board is impleaded as additional 6th respondent. An interim order was passed by this Court on 09-03-2016 directing the 1st respondent to ensure that no obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 5 in the matter relating to loading and unloading work being carried on by the 1st petitioner through his registered workers, whose identity cards are produced as Ext.P5 series.

4. It is an undisputed fact that the 1st petitioner's manufacturing unit is situated in a non-Scheme covered area, while his showroom is situated in a scheme covered area. As per the provisions of Rule 26A of the Rules, the employer is at liberty to engage his own workers for the loading and unloading work, whether it is a scheme covered area or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 (3) KLT 58, wherein it is held that as long as there are permanent headload workers for the establishment, irrespective of the area to which they belong to, they can carry on such work without reference to the area as long as it is for