Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. Petitioners, who are husband and wife, own paddy fields and are engaged regularly in agricultural operations at Payyaloor, Kollengode. They employ permanent workers to attend to all works of farming. During the current year, the third respondent—Union representing employees engaged in headload works in the area had put up a demand that loading works, especially that of paddy available there, should be entrusted to them. Petitioners do not recognise the right, especially since their own permanent workers would have to be kept idling. As there was obstruction and threat of use of force, they had requested for police help, and as this was not forthcoming the writ petition has come to be filed. The interim order passed', as at present, takes cares of the interest of the petitioners now. 2. When the matter came up for hearing, we had heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, appearing on behalf of the third respondent-Union. He submits that the petitioners are large scale agriculturists having about 8 acres of land under cultivation. The work of loading and unloading of paddy, manure and the like comes within the purview of the Headload Workers Act. The petitioners reside in a Scheme notified area. Loading and unloading works in such areas are to be exclusively carried out by registered workmen and he submits that the writ petition itself is misconceived. 3. In view of the importance of the issue, on our own, we had taken the task of examining the veracity of the contentions, as above. 4. Under S.2(j) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, the word 'establishment' is defined. S.1(3) of the Act restricts the operational field of the Act to establishments. The Scheme lists the group of activities as coming within the definition. Plantations, such as coffee, rubber etc., come within the purview of the Act, but agricultural operations relating to paddy are not so included in the Schedule. This is a stray circumstance in favour of the petitioners to urge that the demand is not legal. 5. It is not seriously disputed that the agricultural operations are attended to by the workmen engaged by the petitioners on a permanent basis. Counsel points out that a separate enactment, namely the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, governs them. This position is practically accepted, and agricultural works necessarily have to include harvesting, threshing, bagging and at times transport. 5. It is not seriously disputed that the agricultural operations are attended to by the workmen engaged by the petitioners on a permanent basis. Counsel points out that a separate enactment, namely the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act, governs them. This position is practically accepted, and agricultural works necessarily have to include harvesting, threshing, bagging and at times transport. Headload work is only incidental in the process. We are of the view that these are clinching circumstances for arriving at a decision on the disputed points. 6. There is nothing to indicate that the provisions of the Headload Workers Act, therefore, have application in the circumstances presented before us. The only reason that there exists loading/unloading works in the course of agricultural operations by itself is not sufficient enough to automatically convert the activities as coming under the purview of the Headload Workers Act. The legislative policy appears to be that the said enactment is applicable only to named commercial activities alone and so long as paddy cultivation does not come within its coverage, the claims of the respondents necessary will have to be brushed aside. 7. Perhaps the Unions and the workmen have raised the claim on an experimental pattern, as the petitioner submits that hitherto such contentions were not at all there. When we examine the Scheme of the Headload Workers Act, it has to be noticed that in a notified area, the registered workers have to be pooled by a Committee, and the Committee is considered as the employer of the workers. The owner of the establishment is required to register himself under the Act; has to pay levy, and remit the equivalent amount of wages in advance. The Committee alone is authorised to depute workers. These are systematic and self regulated. The Union representing workmen or a few workmen on the strength of registration are not authorised or entitled to gatecrash and demand work, even from an establishment covered by the Scheme. It has to be done in a democratically authorised manner. In case there is dispute, there is machinery provided for resolving such disputes. These are systematic and self regulated. The Union representing workmen or a few workmen on the strength of registration are not authorised or entitled to gatecrash and demand work, even from an establishment covered by the Scheme. It has to be done in a democratically authorised manner. In case there is dispute, there is machinery provided for resolving such disputes. Further, it would be rather preposterous to suggest that an agriculturist has to register himself with the Committee under the Headload Workers Act, pay levy and request for deputation of workmen, when year round he is engaging regular workmen, and they are prepared as well as entitled to, attend to every work relating to agricultural activities. 8. We hold that the petitioners have the right to engage their own employees for the works relating to agricultural operations, namely loading and unloading works of paddy. It may also include operations such as unloading loading work of straw, seeds, manure and the like. The workers registered under the Headload Workers Act have no legally enforceable right for insisting that any of such work is to be reserved for them. 9. We direct that in case there is obstruction forthcoming, on a request, the Police should see to it that adequate protection is offered to the petitioners. The third respondent will also do well to advise their members about the nature and extent of their rights, and the manner in which such rights are to be enforced. Free enterprise is guaranteed right of a citizen, and muscle power will only be counter-productive. Further, the Headload Workers Act itself is intended to ensure that persons engaged for such work are assured of a regularity of earnings by pooling the available work. An employer, who is prepared to engage workers on a regular basis, is therefore not to be harassed, as the beneficiaries themselves belong to workmen community, and the reservations prescribed by the State no more is required by them. It is common knowledge that no purpose would be served by requiring the regular workmen to keep idle, and available work is to be farmed out to third parties. The proposition is an absurdity viewed from economic angle. 10. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction. We restrain ourselves from granting costs as against the respondents, since it is noticed that after the interim orders, they have withdrawn from the scene.