Judgment : Joseph, J. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to grant adequate police protection for doing the head load works in connection with the new show room under the name and style M/s. Seema’s Wedding Collections, Manakkadavu Junction near Private Bus stand, Pala road, Thodupuzha without any obstruction from the members of respondents 4 to 8 and also for a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and to grant registration to petitioners 2 to 5 under the Head load Workers’ Act as permanent head load workers of M/s. Seema’s Wedding Collection. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is as follows. The first petitioner is the General Manager of M/s. Seema’s Wedding Collections, a new establishment proposed to be opened in the first week of March. It is in a new building located at Manakkadavu Junction at Pala Road, Thodupuzha. The unloading works in the establishment is a work of permanent nature and all its branches situated at Aluva, Perumbavoor and Angamaly have permanent employees. Accordingly the first petitioner appointed petitioners 2 to 5 as permanent head load workers in the new establishment. They submitted Ext.P1 application for registration under the Kerala Headload Workers’ Act before the third respondent, Assistant Labour Officer, Thodupuzha, who has not passed any order on Ext.P1. The delay is being caused at the instance of respondents 3 to 8, who have directed the third respondent that if registration is granted, their claim for employment will be lost for ever. 3. On 25.1.2010 there was obstruction from respondents 4 to 7. The first petitioner approached respondents 1 and 2 for protection. 4. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the 8th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. In this case, apparently the first petitioner proposed to start a new establishment. In regard to new establishment, sub section (1) of Section 26 of the Head load Workers’ Act states that every employer shall maintain such registers and records as may be prescribed under the sub section Earlier in 2001, by Ordinance 25 of 2001, certain benefits were given to new establishments. But the said Ordinance has lapsed and Section 26 of the Act as presently stands does not give any benefit to new establishment as was intended by the Ordinance. 6. But the said Ordinance has lapsed and Section 26 of the Act as presently stands does not give any benefit to new establishment as was intended by the Ordinance. 6. It is not in dispute that the work is to be done in an area, where the scheme applies. As of now, therefore, the first petitioner cannot claim any right to carry out the work with the assistance of petitioner 2 to 5, who have admittedly only applied for registration. The first petitioner must necessarily carry out the loading and unloading work with the assistance of the head load workers, who are having registration as per law. However, we direct the third respondent, Assistant Labour Officer, Thodupuzha to take a decision on the application filed by petitioners 2 to 5 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date on which a copy of this judgment is produced before him. The Writ petition is disposed of as above.