Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a partner of a firm conducting business. Petitioner has set up an additional godown at Pattalam road in Thrissur close to his show room already existing there. He has to bring articles in trucks. Trucks and vehicles are brought in the compound for the purpose of unloading. According to the petitioner, he has his own workmen for that. But when unloading started on 15.6.98, the petitioner's workmen were obstructed by a group of persons under the leadership of respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner submits. They claimed employment in the headload work available in the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner apprised them that, he is having his own employees. But, that was not heeded to. Petitioner complained to the police. According to the petitioner, "the 1 st and 2nd respondents have told hi m that they arc not in a position to provide any protection to the petitioner or to interfere in the matter, as, according to mem, the same was a labour dispute". The petitioner does not employ any outside labourer for the loading and unloading work in connection with his show room or godown at Thrissur. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction for police protection including for loading and unloading work in connection with his showroom and godown at Thrissur without obstruction from 4th and 5th respondents. 2. Petitioner contends that when he has his own workmen, the members of the 4th respondent union and the pooled workers under the 5th respondent cannot demand employment, under the petitioner. They have no manner of right to obstruct the work conducted by by the petitioner with his own workmen. He has no liability to employ workmen unionized under the 4th respondent or the workmen pooled under the 5th respondent. Therefore, he shall be granted police protection, the petitioner submits. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent. It is submitted by them that the place where the godown and showroom of the petitioner are situated is covered by Kerala Headload Workers Regulation of Employment and Welfare (Scheme), 1983 framed in terms of S.13 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. Therefore, when such Scheme is in force, according to the 4th respondent, "the individual employer loses his right (if any) to engage or employ his own workers for doing the loading and unloading work". Therefore, when such Scheme is in force, according to the 4th respondent, "the individual employer loses his right (if any) to engage or employ his own workers for doing the loading and unloading work". It is submitted by the 4th.respondent that only workers registered under the Scheme can be employed by the petitioner. It is further contended that, "after the Scheme is brought into operation in any area, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in that area. Hence if the employer is having any headload worker who is registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, they alone can work in such area". The petitioner does not have any registered headload worker, the counsel contends. If there are such registered workers, their name should find a place in the register statutorily maintained by the petitioner in terms of Ss.25 and 26 of the said Act. Therefore, the members of the 41h respondent who are pooled by the 5th respondent alone will have the right to work in the petitioner's establishment in connection with the loading and unloading operation. So, police protection shall not be granted. 4. The petitioner submits that no registration is necessary in respect of the permanent workmen employed by the petitioner, even if they are engaged for headload work. Therefore, police protection shall be granted. 5. The Kerala Headload Workers Act has been promulgated to regulate the employment of the Headload Workers in the State and to make provisions for their welfare, settlement of dispute and other related matters. "Headload worker" as defined in S.2(m) is a person engaged directly or through a contractor in or for an establishment, including for loading or unloading of any article except than for domestic purpose. When the petitioner is thus employing workers for the purpose of unloading articles brought to his godown or show-room, he is engaging headload worker. As per R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, any headload worker may, submit his application for registration to the Registering Authority. As per R.26, the Assistant Labour Officer shall prepare a register of headload workers working in an area. R.27 provides for maintenance of register and records by employers like the petitioner as well regarding the headload workers employed by the employer. As per R.26, the Assistant Labour Officer shall prepare a register of headload workers working in an area. R.27 provides for maintenance of register and records by employers like the petitioner as well regarding the headload workers employed by the employer. Thus, there is a registration of headload workers in terms of the said Rule, whether such headload workers are employed by any employer or such headload workers are not the workers of any particular employer but works for casual works of different employers. It is submitted by the 4th and 5th respondents that the Scheme is applicable to the area where the petitioner has established his godown and showroom. A Committee with the Chairman and Convenor would be constituted as the respondent No. 5, only if the Scheme is made applicable. Once the Scheme is made applicable, certain further procedure for regulation of employment of headload workers in the Scheme area is provided in paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme which reads as follows: "No headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies-from the date of commencement of the functional operation of Scheme in the area". So, if anybody has to be employed as headload worker whether such workers are in the permanent rolls of an employer or not, or whether such worker is a free lancer, he shall be registered in terms of the Rules as mentioned above. 6. But, the headload workers who are not permanently employed by an employer shall, after the commencement of the Scheme, get a further registration under the Scheme if they want to continue as headload worker. It is so provided in paragraph 6.2 of the Scheme. Such further registration is not necessary for the permanent workers on the rolls of an employer. But, whatever be the category of workers, all of them shall have registration in terms of the Rules. The petitioner does not have a case that any of the headload worker stated to be employed by him in the newly started godown or the showroom is registered under the Headload Workers Rules as a headload worker. But, whatever be the category of workers, all of them shall have registration in terms of the Rules. The petitioner does not have a case that any of the headload worker stated to be employed by him in the newly started godown or the showroom is registered under the Headload Workers Rules as a headload worker. When there is no such registration, the prohibition contained in paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme operates and the petitioner cannot employ a headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provisions of the said Rules as per paragraph 6.1. If the petitioner employs anybody without such registration stating that they are his own workmen, that will violate paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme statutorily framed. As per S.18, a Committee can be constituted for working of the Scheme and it is the function of the Committee as per sub-s.(8) thereof to pool the headload workers who are not employed under any employer or contractor' and 'to arrange and regulate employment to such headload workers and to pay them wages'. When the petitioner thus is not having any registered headload worker, if the petitioner wants to employ any headload worker, he has to employ the workers pooled by the 5th respondent Committee and allotted to the petitioner on request; or else to gel his workers registered in terms of the Rules if possible. If the police protection is allowed as prayed for by the petitioner to conduct the loading and unloading operation in the petitioner's establishment employing his own workmen who are admittedly not registered under the Rules, it will militate against the statutory provisions contained in paragraph 6.1 of the Scheme. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief sought for in this Original Petition. O.P. fails. Dismissed, No costs.