JUDGMENT : K.T. Sankaran, J. The petitioner company is functioning in the Development Area, Edayar at Aluva. The company is engaged in the manufacture of spice oils, Oleo resins and herbal extracts. The unit was started in the year 2001. It is stated that at that time the petitioner had only minimal loading and unloading work and the work was being carried out with the help of helpers employed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner started engaging headload workers under Pool No.33 of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, Ernakulam District Committee for unloading the goods brought to the company premises. They were members of respondents 2 and 3 unions. The rates of wages were fixed by the settlement entered by respondents 2 and 3 unions with Edayar Small Scale Industries Association from time to time. 2. In June 2014, the petitioner started a new unit in the same compound exclusively for turmeric extraction, employing a new set of workers. The headload workers from Pool No.33 were being engaged for unloading the goods. However, those workers declined to take up the works at the wages prevalent as per the existing settlement. The headload workers demanded exorbitant wages. The petitioner was not willing to pay that amount. The headload workers under Pool No.33 declined to carry out the loading and unloading works. They also obstructed the loading and unloading activities in both the units of the petitioner. They also obstructed unloading of husk required to run the boiler. As a consequence of the same, the operations in both the units of the petitioner came to a standstill. 3. Placed in that situation, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 36251 of 2015 seeking police protection for carrying out the loading and unloading work free from the obstructions caused by respondents 2 and 3 unions. That Writ Petition was dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment dated 1.12.2015 on the ground that the petitioner was bound to engage the pool workers for loading and unloading. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration of its headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. After completing the necessary legal formalities, identity cards were issued to them by the Assistant Labour Officer, North Paravur, evidenced by Exts.P2 to P6. 5. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for registration of its headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. After completing the necessary legal formalities, identity cards were issued to them by the Assistant Labour Officer, North Paravur, evidenced by Exts.P2 to P6. 5. Even when the petitioner started availing the services of the registered headload workers, the workers of respondents 2 and 3 unions obstructed the loading and unloading activities, which created law and order situation and paralyzed the working of the industry. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition for issuing appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to provide adequate and necessary protection to the petitioner's units at the Development Area in Edayar at Aluva, its officials, employees, staff and workers as also the vehicles coming there for due functioning and operations including carrying out of loading and unloading works through its own workers without any let or hindrance from respondents 2 and 3 and their office bearers, members and men. 6. When the Writ Petition came up for admission on 21.1.2016, a Division Bench of this Court granted an interim order for police protection. That order is still in force. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that their workers alone are entitled to carry out the loading and unloading operations in the industrial units of the petitioner since the area is a scheme covered area. The learned counsel could not explain how a labourer who has been issued with registration and identity card under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules could be prevented from doing the loading and unloading work if the employer has engaged him. There is no such right for the pool workers. The Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules were framed for the benefit of both the workers as well as employers. The Act is intended to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State of Kerala and to make provision for their welfare, for settlement of disputes in respect of their employment or non-employment and for matters connected therewith. The Kerala Headload Workers Act does not empower the headload workers in the State of Kerala, who are members of any union affiliated to a political party, to say that independent workers who have got registration under the Headload Workers Rules have no right to be employed by an employer. The Kerala Headload Workers Act does not empower the headload workers in the State of Kerala, who are members of any union affiliated to a political party, to say that independent workers who have got registration under the Headload Workers Rules have no right to be employed by an employer. Whether a member of a union or a non-member of a union, if the person concerned is a headload worker registered under the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, he has equal right with that of a member of a trade union. The members of trade unions do not have any special right under the Act or Rules or any right more than the rights of a registered headload worker who is not a member of any union. The only restriction is that registered workers attached to particular unit or employer cannot claim to be employed for loading and unloading work other than in the particular unit or under the specified employer, whereas the registered pool workers are entitled to work in the area allotted to them. The unions are intended for the organisational purpose of workers and nobody can contend that if a person is not a member of any trade union, he can be denied employment or he can be prevented from doing the loading and unloading work. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, it is stated that out of the employees to whom Exts.P2 to P6 identity cards have been issued, some persons are interstate migrant workers. The Board has not given concurrence to give registration to such migrant workers. It is submitted that it is mandatory that the establishments where interstate migrant workers are engaged, the firm has to be registered under the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the said question need not be considered in this Writ Petition and the question may be left open. Accordingly, that question is left open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. 9. The resultant position is that the petitioner has employed five headload workers to whom registration under the Rules has been granted and identity cards have been issued. They cannot be prevented from working in the establishment. Accordingly, that question is left open for consideration in appropriate proceedings. 9. The resultant position is that the petitioner has employed five headload workers to whom registration under the Rules has been granted and identity cards have been issued. They cannot be prevented from working in the establishment. The members of respondents 2 and 3 unions claimed that they alone should be employed in the establishment. They have no right to say that the workers employed by the petitioner, who are registered under the Rules and to whom identity cards have been issued, are not entitled to be employed on the ground that they are not members of any trade union. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow the Writ Petition and grant the reliefs prayed for.