JUDGMENT :

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. The petitioner is carrying on a quarry and is aggrieved with obstruction caused by respondents 3 to 8 to the loading and unloading work carried on in the petitioner's premises. Learned Counsel appears for respondents 3 to 7 & 8.

2. The Standing Counsel appearing for the additional 9th respondent Board submits that it is not a scheme covered area.

3. The respondents Union also do not have a case that it is a scheme covered area. However, persons who are having Rule 26A cards, are headload workers entitled to carry on headload work in the area is the submission. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 8th respondent that the headload workers having Rule 26A cards were carrying on the work in the quarry for the last 12 years. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 7 also submits that this is their only livelihood and the contention of the petitioner has to be rejected.

4. The right to work as headload workers as crystallised by Rule 26A cards arises by reason of the Headload Workers Act. However, the mere fact that Rule26A cards have been issued would not enable the cardholders to seek loading and unloading work in the area as a matter