A petitioner must seek resolution through competent authority regarding duties towards headload workers before seeking judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2026 The petitioner is the proprietor of a solid cement bricks manufacturing unit. According to the petitioner, he is functioning with every licence contemplated by the law.

2. It is case of the petitioner that respondents 4 and 5 claiming to be headload workers of the area, are claiming that the loading and unloading work at the unit of the petitioner can only be done through them. It appears to the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner does not presently have any permanent workers who are registered under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’), since the loading and unloading in the petitioner’s unit is done using machines and since any other work associated with loading and unloading such as stacking is only incidental, the petitioner is not bound to engage respondents 4 and 5.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent, namely, the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board would submit that the dispute has to be adjudicated by the competent authority in terms of the provisions contained under Section 21 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is submitted that without having attempted to get the dispute resolved, the manner as contemplated by , the petitioner cannot rush to this Court and seek police protection in the facts and circumstances noticed above.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 would also support the contentions taken by the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent. It is submitted that the area in question is a scheme covered area. It is submitted that admittedly the petitioner has no registered workers under Rule 26A of the Rules, the petitioner is bound to engage respondents 4 and 5 and other pool workers in the area. It is submitted that very nature of business of the petitioner shows that loading and unloading is not incidental and respondents 4 and 5 have the right to be engaged for such loading and unloading works.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th respondent, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances noticed above, the petitioner has to immediately initiate proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, for the purpose of determining the issue as to whether the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner is purely incidental and being done using machines, thus, relieving the petitioner of the obligation to engage headload workers in terms of the provisions contained in the scheme. However, in the meanwhile, the law and order has to be maintained.

6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of directing as follows:

(a) If the petitioner files an application before the competent authority in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Act, within a period of 10 days from today, the said application shall be adjudicated by the competent authority after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, without undue delay and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of which the application is filed by the petitioner.

(b) The competent authority shall specifically advert to the question as to whether the loading and unloading activity in the premises of the petitioner is purely incidental or whether it forms part of the main activity and dependent on the decision of the competent authority, the petitioner shall either engage respondents 4 and 5 or other pool workers in the area