JUDGMENT : A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J. 1. The petitioner, claims to be the proprietor of M/s. Prince Enterprises, who is having dealership of food grains in Malappuram District at Valanchery. According to him, he has his own permanent workers for loading and unloading work and the same is being obstructed by party respondents 3 to 6. The petitioner has approached the Police for necessary protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work and prevent party respondents from interfering with the work being carried on, but no action has been taken by them. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide adequate police protection against respondents 3 to 6 and their men, for the petitioner, his workers and his property. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 3 to 6 inter alia stating that though the area in question was not a scheme covered area, subsequently it was declared as scheme covered area. Registration cards in terms of Exts.P6 to P9 were issued by the authority at a time when it is not a scheme covered area. But now the unit has been transferred to another place and petitioner has violated the provisions in the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. According to them, even if the permanent workers have registration under Rule 26A of Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, after the area has been declared as scheme covered area, they are not entitled to carry on the work and the party respondents are entitled for loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 and learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd v. Sub Inspector of Police [2012 KHC 2597] with specific reference to paragraphs 17 and 18 which reads as under: "17. Our view is fortified, by clause 6(1) and (2) of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983, the procedure contemplated for regulation of employment of headload workers pertaining to scheme covered areas. The definition of 'headload worker' as stated above would be clarified in a better and meaningful way. Clause 6 of the Scheme reads as under: "6. The definition of 'headload worker' as stated above would be clarified in a better and meaningful way. Clause 6 of the Scheme reads as under: "6. Procedure for regulation of employment of headload workers on Scheme areas.- (1) No headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provision 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. (2) From the date of commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme in any area, no headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer or contractor shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies unless he is granted a further registration under the provisions of this Scheme." 18. Clause 6(1) of the Scheme contemplates a situation where a headload worker is barred from discharging the work, if he is not the registered worker in an area where the Scheme is applicable. If he intends to work in an area, to which the Scheme is applicable from the date of commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme in such area, necessarily, he has to get registration as a headload worker under the Labour Officer concerned for that area. When we come to clause 6(2) of the Scheme, it refers to operation of the Scheme in different areas and the requirement of registration in different areas to discharge the work of a headload worker in more than one area. But, an exception is carved out for a particular class of headload workers, i.e., permanent headload workers. If the employer has permanent headload workers working for him, such permanent headload workers need not get separate registration in any other area, as long as they have registration under a particular area." 5. It is contended that since petitioner's workers are his permanent workers and they have already been registered under Rule 26A of Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981, there is no necessity for further registration, after the declaration of the area as scheme covered area. This contention has been refuted by learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 inter alia contending that a different procedure is to be followed in a scheme covered area. 6. This contention has been refuted by learned counsel for respondents 3 to 6 inter alia contending that a different procedure is to be followed in a scheme covered area. 6. Having regard to the factual situation, the short question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has permanent workers and have already been registered as per Exts.P6 to P9, which shows that registration cards also have been issued to them. Once such cards are issued and if respondents 3 to 6 are entitled to do the work of petitioner, it is open for them to approach the competent authority. They cannot take law into their own hands and prevent the petitioner from doing the work with the help of his registered workers. If there is any issue with regard to the validity of the cards issued to the workers of petitioner, it is a matter to be adjudicated before appropriate authorities for which the right of respondents 3 to 6 is kept open. But having regard to the fact that petitioner is carrying on loading and unloading work with his permanent registered workers, we are of the view that if any obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 6, Police is bound to ensure that no law and order situation happens in the functioning of the said establishment. Under these circumstances this writ petition is disposed of as under: Respondents 1 and 2 shall ensure that no obstruction is caused by respondents 3 to 6 or their men in the matter of loading and unloading work being carried on in the establishment of the petitioner or in respect of any other activities being carried on by the petitioner in the said establishment and shall ensure maintenance of law and order situation. The right of respondents 3 to 6 to object to the validity of cards issued as per Exts.P6 to P9 is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.