JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of a firm by name "M/s. Madathil Enterprises" and he says that he is an A-Class PWD contractor as is discernible from Ext.P1 registration certificate. 2. According to the petitioner, he has entered into an agreement with the "Kerala Infrastructure and Technology for Education" for the purpose of modernization of various schools to the international standards, as centres of excellence and he has produced on record Ext.P3, being a copy of the said agreement. He says that when he commenced work at the Mahatma Gandhi Government High School, Pala, respondents 6 to 9, making certain untenable demands, obstructed the work and that they have criminally trespassed into the work site, abusing and threatening the Supervisor and other workers of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the demands made by respondents 6 to 9 are completely illegal and that they have now obstructed the loading and unloading of the construction articles in the site, further demanding that they should be employed. It is the petitioner's specific case that the work involved is highly skilled in nature and therefore, that persons like respondents 6 to 9 cannot be engaged, even if the petitioner want to do so. 3. Even though notice was issued from this Court to respondents 6 to 9 and eve- though they have been validly served, they have chosen neither to be present n person nor to be represented through counsel. We, therefore, inferentia no that they have nothing to offer in answer to the various allegations in this writ petition. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 10th respondent says that the area in question where the school is situated, is a Scheme covered area under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and he says that, therefore, the petitioner is obligated to engage the workers from the Board. He, however concedes that the work isbeing carried out in a school thus taking it out of the definition of "establishment" under 'Section 2(j)of the Act but Contends that merely because the work is being conducted inside the school, such benefit would not be obtained to the petitioner, who is not part of the school but is only a contractor. 5. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on instructions from respondents 1 to 3, who are the Police Officers in charge of the area where the school is situated, submits that there are no law and order issues at the moment and that the disputes between the petitioner and respondents 6 to 9 are in the labour realm. He says that normally the Police cannot interfere but assures this Court that as and when there is a problem, they will certainly assist the petitioner in completing the work as per law. 6. In the afore circumstances, taking note of the submissions of the various DAILIES in this case, we are of the view that respondents 6 to 9 cannot claim any vested or statutory right to be employed by the petitioner or to be paid any amount to which they are not entitled. 7. Since the work is being carried on in the Mahatma Gandhi Government High School, Pala, we are prima facie of the view that the benefit of Section 2(j) would apply and therefore, that respondents 6 to 9 or any other persons in the pool of workers maintained under the Headload Workers Act will not obtain an automatic right to be employed by the petitioner. In the afore circumstances, we order this writ petition and direct the third respondent - Inspector of Police, Pala, to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner against the obstructions caused by respondents 6 to 9 or any other persons acting under them, in the event any complaint is made before them by the petitioner, alleging commission of offence or any attempt to commit an offence, which shall be taken note of appropriately and action pursued without delay.