The right to employ registered workers under specific regulations is upheld against undue interference from unionized workers.

JUDGMENT The petitioner is the proprietor of a concern known by the name Pulickampurath Traders, situated in Kannur District. The petitioner is engaged in hardware business. It is stated that the petitioner has six permanent workers for doing loading and unloading work at the establishment of the petitioner and all of them have been granted registration in terms of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (in short ‘the Rules).

2. According to the petitioner, on 18.08.2025, certain workers claiming to owe allegiance to the 5^th respondent, had come to the establishment of the petitioner demanding that they should be engaged for loading and unloading work. It is stated that they threatened the petitioner and attempted to manhandle the permanent workers of the petitioner and also attempted to obstruct loading and unloading work at the establishment of the petitioner. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P9 before respondents 1 to 4 seeking protection to carry on loading and unloading work using permanent workers having registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. However, no action was taken on the basis of Ext.P9 prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.

3. When this matter came up for consideration before this Court on 27.08.2025, this Court passed the following interim order:

“Heard.

The petitioner has established a prima facie case. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall provide adequate police protection to the petitioner to employ workers for loading and unloading work, who have been issued 26A card as per Exts.P1 to P6.”

That order has been extended from time to time.

4. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 5^th respondent.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, I am of the opinion that in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to contend that he is authorized to carry out loading and unloading work through his own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the Rules to the exclusion of headload workers belonging to the pool. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for the 5^th respondent. Therefore, it must be taken that the 5^th respondent has no contention to take in response to the contentions taken in the writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of making the interim order dated

27.08.2025 absolute. However, it is made clear that the police authorities need to intervene only if there is a law and order situation and such law and order situation is brought to the notice of the 3^rd respondent. If the petitioner faces any obstruction from the 5^th respondent or its men, the petitioner shall bring the said matter to the notice of the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent shall then intervene the matter and ensure that the activity of the petitioner is not obstructed by the 5^th respondent or its men and the petitioner is permitted to carry on loading and unloading activities using his own workers who have got valid registration in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 26A of the Rules.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-