Employers have the right to seek police protection for lawful operations, and valid registration permits workers to operate beyond jurisdictional limits when employed under the same employer.

JUDGMENT :

GOPINATH P., J.

1. The petitioner is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of carrying and forwarding, providing warehousing facilities and related activities. According to the petitioner, in connection with this business, it has constructed warehouses in different places in and around Ernakulam District. It is also taken warehouses on lease. According to the petitioner, it had entered into an agreement dated 12.06.2025 with the owners of the land and building in Vazhakulam Village for the purposes of storage of products of M/s. Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Private Ltd., which includes loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, sorting, and cleaning, etc. A copy of the agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd. is placed on record as Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, it has obtained all necessary licenses and permissions from the statutory authorities in connection with its business. It is the case of the petitioner that it has its own registered headload workers. The names of 24 permanent workers of the petitioner to whom identity cards have been issued under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules), have been placed on record as Exts. P6 to P29. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 18.06.2025, when certain materials were brought to the warehouse in order to provide partitioning and creation of office space, a group of individuals caused obstruction, stating that they are headload workers and are entitled to do all the loading and unloading work in the area. According to the petitioner, it submitted a complaint before the local police. It is stated that after completion of the work inside the warehouse, the business operations started and on 25.6.2025, respondents 4 to 6, together with their men, illegally entered the warehouse premises and physically prevented loading and unloading activities. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 and their men openly declared that the petitioner will not be permitted to carry on with their activities without providing work to the loading and unloading workers owing allegiance to respondents 4 to 6, prompting the petitioner to again petition the local police. It is contended that, in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to carry on loading and unloading work through the workers whose names are mentioned in Exts. P6 to P29. It is submitted that even according to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner firm started operating in Vazhakulam only in July 2025. It is submitted that the copies of the cards allegedly issued to the workers of the petitioner under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules indicate that they were all issued earlier than the date on which the petitioner firm started functioning at Vazhakulam. It is stated that 19 of the 26A cards relied on by the petitioner have been issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, who has no lawful jurisdiction to issue the same. It is submitted that four out of the 26A cards produced by the petitioner have been issued to a different establishment functioning in a completely different address. It is submitted that Ext. R4(b), a document which is information obtained by one of the pool workers in the area in question, indicates that there are no records in the office of the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, regarding 26A cards allegedly issued to the employees of the petitioner firm. It is submitted that Ext. R4(b) also indicates that the workers to whom 26A cards have been issued by the Assistant Lab