Judgment : 1. The first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its Head Office at Little Flower Church Road, Elamakkara, Kaloor, Ernakulam, Kochi 682 017. Petitioners 2 to 11 are employees of the first petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge Ext.P13 order passed by the first respondent allowing an appeal filed by the fourth respondent and setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the registering authority under the Kerala Headload Workers' Act, 1978, granting registration as headload workers to petitioners 2 to 11 and another, under rule 26A of the Kerla Headload Workers' Rules, 1981. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The first petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of clothing and wearing apparel of various types. The first petitioner opened two branches of its business establishment; one at premises bearing door No.49/681 at Puthukkalavattom and another at premises bearing door No.48/1748 at Perumbotta Road, both in Elamakkara. The business activity carried on the said branches is collection and packing of ready made garments for despatch to dealers and business establishments inside and outside Kerala. The first petitioner had engaged a total number of thirty two employees in the two branches referred to above including petitioners 2 to 11 and another by name Mr.P.V.Alex to do the loading and unloading work. Petitioners 2 to 11 and Mr.P.V.Alex, engaged to do the loading and unloading work in the first petitioner's business establishments at Elamakkara, applied to the second respondent for registration under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, 1981. Upon receipt of the applications, the second respondent issued notice to the first petitioner employer and respondents 3 and 4.The third respondent filed Ext.P2 objections, objecting to the grant of registration to petitioners 2 to 11 and Mr.P.V.Alex. The second respondent thereafter heard the parties and passed Ext.P3 order dated 15.12.2010 granting registration to petitioners 2 to 11 and Mr.P.V.Alex, head load workers of the first petitioner's establishments, under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, 1981. Ext.P4 series of identity cards were thereupon issued to petitioners 2 to 11 and Mr.P.V.Alex. Mr.P.V.Alex was deployed in the premises bearing door No.49/681 at Puthukkalavattom along with petitioners 2 to 5 and petitioners 6 to 11 were deployed in the premises bearing door No.48/1748. Mr.P.V.Alex later resigned to take up employment abroad. 3. Ext.P4 series of identity cards were thereupon issued to petitioners 2 to 11 and Mr.P.V.Alex. Mr.P.V.Alex was deployed in the premises bearing door No.49/681 at Puthukkalavattom along with petitioners 2 to 5 and petitioners 6 to 11 were deployed in the premises bearing door No.48/1748. Mr.P.V.Alex later resigned to take up employment abroad. 3. Even thereafter, the fourth respondent objected to the first petitioner engaging petitioners 2 to 11 to do the loading and unloading work in its establishments. The first petitioner thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.2252 of 2011 in this Court seeking police protection. By Ext.P5 order passed on 25.1.2011, an interim order of police protection was granted so as to enable the first petitioner to do the loading and unloading work in its establishments at Puthukkalavattom by engaging petitioners 2 to 11. This Court however clarified that the employees covered by the order granting registration will be entitled to work in the establishments only till the registration remains valid. The fourth respondent had in the meanwhile, filed Ext.P6 appeal before the first respondent challenging Ext.P3 order. Upon receipt of notice of the appeal, the first petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P8 objections. One of the objections raised was that the workers who have been granted registration, have not been made parties to the appeal. Yet another objection was that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent is not maintainable. Thereupon, the fourth respondent impleaded petitioners 2 to 11 as parties to the appeal and they filed Ext.P12 objections raising various contentions including the contention that the fourth respondent has no right to challenge Ext.P3 order and the appeal filed by the fourth respondent is not maintainable. By Ext.P13 order passed on 26.2.2011, the first respondent allowed the appeal and set aside Ext.P3 order granting registration to petitioners 2 to 11 under the Kerala Head Load Workers Rules, 1981. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P13 and seeking the following reliefs: "i) issue a writ if certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, calling for the records leading to Exhibit- P13 order passed by the first respondent and verify its legality, propriety, correctness and reasonableness and quash the same and consequently hold that the Exhibit-P4 ID cards are legally valid and sustainable. ii) declare that the Exhibit-P6 appeal filed by the 4th respondent (pool worker) challenging the Exhibit-P3 and P4, is not maintainable in law, in view of the Rule 26A and 26C of the Rules, 1981 and other relevant provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 and the Rules, 1981, since a pool worker is a third party to the proceedings in regard to granting the ID cards to an attached worker and consequently has no right of any say in that matter and also no right of appeal under Rule 26C of the Rules." 4.The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent challenging Ext.P3 order is not maintainable and that the fourth respondent is not a person aggrieved and has no locus standi to file an appeal challenging Ext.P3 order and therefore, the order passed by the first respondent, setting aside Ext.P3 order whereby petitioners 2 to 11 were granted registration under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, cannot be sustained, having regard to the principles laid down by this Court in Rajeev v. District Laboour Officer [2010 (4) KLT 783].Various other contentions are also raised in the writ petition. The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 24.6.2011 contending inter alia that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent is maintainable and that existing headload workers of the locality have the right to file an appeal as held by this Court in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan [2002 (1) KLT 39]. It is also contended that head load workers of pool No.43 at Elamakkara are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in and around Elamakkara including in the establishments of the first petitioner. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 4.7.2011 reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 5. I heard Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. 5. I heard Sri.V.Santharam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Koshy George, learned standing counsel appearing for the third respondent and Sri.N.Raghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The two questions that arise for consideration in this writ petition are i) whether the appeal filed by the fourth respondent challenging Ext.P3 order is maintainable and ii) whether even if the appeal is maintainable, the order passed by the appellate authority is in order. Shorn of details, the objection raised by the fourth respondent to the grant of registration under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, to petitioners 2 to 11 and another is that only registered headload workers of pool No.43 at Elamakkara are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the locality. The stand taken by the first petitioner is that it is entitled to have its own set of workers to do the loading and unloading work in its establishments. By the impugned order, the appellate authority held relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Jnana Prakasam v. Natarajan (supra) that the appeal filed by the fourth respondent is maintainable. On the merits, the appellate authority held that prior to the first petitioner commencing business in the premises referred to above, workers of pool No.43 were engaged to do the loading and unloading work in the business establishments functioning therein and therefore, the registration granted to petitioners 2 to 11 and another is not in order as it encroaches into the right of workers of pool No.43 to do the loading and unloading work in the locality. The relevant portion of the finding entered by the appellate authority as regards the validity of the registration granted to petitioners 2 to 11 is extracted below: "As far as the workers in pool No.43 is concerned they were being engaged in these godowns for a very long period and they could get the livelihood from the head load work in these godowns. The argument of the appellant that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volga Teltis Case (1985 (3) SCC.545) cannot be ignored here. The argument of the appellant that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Volga Teltis Case (1985 (3) SCC.545) cannot be ignored here. Here the livelihood of the appellant and others who are being employed systematically on a permanent basis under statutorily constituted employer ship, the Committee, are being denied by the proceeding and the subsequent order of the 3rd respondent. This cannot be termed as not an injustice, therefore the order is totally unjustifiable. The 4th to 14th respondent were not seen described as workers for loading and unloading in the applications. But it is true that loading and unloading works that require the engagement of headload workers are available in these godowns of the 1st respondent. From the application it is seen that out of the 11 applicants, three of them are having more than two years of service and another one having more than 10 years of service. They had been employed in the Head Office, Kaloor but they did not apply for registration till the opening of the godowns in dispute. They were not being registered and employed as Headload workers but they applied for registration only to engaged in the new godowns. This attempt is only to defeat the right of the appellant and others. As the headload workers in pool No.43 were being employed regularly by the Board for past several years to do the headload works in these two godowns, the 3rd respondent has no authority to issue any proceedings or orders that may be resulted in the restriction, prohibition or encroachment of the fundamental rights of the appellant and other workers of pool No.43, for their employment in these godowns. Under these grounds it is found that the registration granted as per order No.HLW 1570/2010 dated 15.12.2010 by the 3rd respondent is not justifiable and legally valid. In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Rule 26 C of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules 1981 the order under challenge is set aside and the registration granted to the 4th respondent and 5th to 14th additional respondents are declared as invalid and the appeal is allowed accordingly. The 4th respondent and 5th to 14th additional respondents are hereby directed not to continue in employment as a registered Headload worker under Rule 26 A under the 1st respondent from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. The 4th respondent and 5th to 14th additional respondents are hereby directed not to continue in employment as a registered Headload worker under Rule 26 A under the 1st respondent from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 6. The files produced by the learned Government Pleader pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 23.2.2012 disclose that in the applications submitted by petitioners 2 to 11 and another (Sri.P.V.Alex), they had been described as loading and unloading workers of the first petitioner's establishment. The appellate authority however took the stand that petitioners 2 to 11 and another (Sri.P.V.Alex) have not been described as persons engaged to do loading and unloading work in the establishment of the first petitioner. The appellate authority allowed the appeal mainly on the ground that as registered headload workers are available in the locality, no other person can be engaged to do the loading and unloading work. The decision of the appellate authority cannot in my opinion be sustained in the light of the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer [2010 (4) KLT 783] and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [1998 (2) KLT 732 (F.B.)]. In Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (supra) a learned single judge of this Court held that for a prospective head load worker to get registration under R.26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, all what is required is physical ability to do headload work. In Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (supra) the Full Bench of this Court held as follows: "In the light of the above discussion, following principles can be deduced. (1) The provisions under Chapter III of the Act are applicable to all headload workers coming within the definition of the term under the Act. (2) The definition would take in both permanent workers attached to an establishment as also workers engagedin the establishment from time to time. But, workers engaged for domestic purposes are excluded. (3) The provisions of the Act would be applicable only to those headload workers who are engaged in establishments coming under the Schedule under S.2(j) (4) All headload workers including permanent workers attached to establishments are liable to get registered under R.26A. But, workers engaged for domestic purposes are excluded. (3) The provisions of the Act would be applicable only to those headload workers who are engaged in establishments coming under the Schedule under S.2(j) (4) All headload workers including permanent workers attached to establishments are liable to get registered under R.26A. (5) In the areas where the Scheme is made applicable, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker as per the Kerala Headlaod Workers Rules, shall be allowed or required to work in that area. It is also necessary that such headload worker shall get a registration under the provisions of the scheme. But, a headload worker who is permanently employed by an employer or a contractor is not liable to get registration under the scheme. (6) An employer is bound to maintain registers and records in respect of every headload worker employed by him as per the provisions contained under R.27 including supply of wage card to any headload worker. (7) It is open to the employer to engage his permanent headload workers attached to his establishment to do the loading and unloading work whether it is in an area where the Scheme is made applicable or not. (8) But, in the area where the scheme is made applicable, if the employer requires additional workers, he has to get them through the committee formed under S.18 and in accordance with the provisions of the scheme. In an area where the scheme is not made applicable, there is no such obligation on the part of the employer and he can engage workers of his own choice. But he will be bound to comply with the provisions of R.27 in respect of such headload workers also. (9) If a headload worker permanently attached to an establishment carrying on other work also, that, by itself, will not take him out of the definition of 'headload worker' under the Act. It will depend upon the nature of the principal engagement and that again has to be decided on the facts of each case." 7. (9) If a headload worker permanently attached to an establishment carrying on other work also, that, by itself, will not take him out of the definition of 'headload worker' under the Act. It will depend upon the nature of the principal engagement and that again has to be decided on the facts of each case." 7. The Full Bench held that it is open to an employer to engage permanent head load workers attachedto his establishment to do the loading and unloading work in his establishment whether it is in an area where the scheme is made applicable or not.The Full Bench also held that all headload workers including permanent workers attached to establishments are liable to get registration under rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers' Rules, 1981. In the instant case, the first respondent appellate authority set aside the order passed by the registering authority on the short ground that registered headload workers of the locality namely workers of pool No.43 alone are entitled to do the loading and unloading work in the locality and no other person can be engaged by the first petitioner to do the loading and unloading work in its establishment. The stand taken by the appellate authority in the impugned order, cannot be sustained having regard to the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police (supra) and the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer (supra). The order passed by the appellate authority is therefore liable to be set aside even on the merits. In such circumstances, it is really not necessary for this Court to consider whether the appeal filed by the registered headload workers of the locality (un-attached workers) to an order granting registration to attached headload workers is maintainable. The said question is left open. For the reasons stated above, I allow the writ petition and set aside Ext.P13. Consequently Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent granting registration to petitioners 2 to 11 shall stand restored and the identity cards issued to them shall continue to be valid. The parties shall bear their respective costs.