JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. We are again faced with a situation where an establishment is before us seeking protection for carrying out loading and unloading work by use of machines. The contention is that they use cranes to load the logs cut in the estate of the 1st petitioner which has to be removed by the 2nd petitioner. There is no scope for engagement of head load workers is the submission.

2. Respondents 5 and 6 Unions appear through Counsel and counter affidavit has also been filed. The learned Counsel for the respondent Unions submits that their members have identity cards issued under Rule 26A, one of which is produced as Ext.R5(a) and this enables them to carry out loading and unloading work in the area. It is hence contended that the work of loading and unloading in the petitioners' estate also has to be conceded to the members of respondents 5 and 6.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that even earlier the particular area was found to be not one which is covered under the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter “the Scheme”). Ext.P6 judgment is also relied on to contend that the us