JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. The petitioner is running an establishment dealing in sale of furniture, hardware, plywood, glass and building materials and manufacture and sale of modular kitchen cabinets. The Head load Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (‘the Scheme’ for short) has been implemented in the area where the petitioner is conducting business. According to the petitioner, all loading and unloading works in his establishment are carried out using cranes operated by skilled crane operators, since the materials to be loaded and unloaded are fragile articles. The petitioner admits that there are incidental loading work in his establishment, which require manual labour. For this purpose, the petitioner has caused his workers to apply for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head load Workers Rules (‘the Rules’ for brevity). The applications having been rejected by the Assistant Labour Officer, an appeal has been preferred before the District Labour Officer and the same is pending. It is submitted that respondents 2 and 3 are the head load workers union and the 4th respondent is the Convener of the Head load Workers pool constituted for the area consisting of members of respondents 2 and 3. It is alleged that respondents 2 to 4 and their members are physically obstructing the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's establishment demanding that, either the head load workers from the pool should be engaged or wages paid, even if the work is carried out with the help of cranes. The writ petition is filed, alleging inaction by the police, in spite of submission of complaints against respondents 2 to 4. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, the 5th respondent being the Alappuzha District Committee of the Kerala Head load Workers Welfare Fund Board, stating that even though cranes are being used for loading and unloading of materials in the petitioner's establishment, manpower is essential for stacking those materials. The services of head load workers are also essential for loading the materials on vehicles and hence, the head load work in the petitioner's establishment cannot be termed as an incidental work. The services of head load workers are also essential for loading the materials on vehicles and hence, the head load work in the petitioner's establishment cannot be termed as an incidental work. It is contended that, in view of Paragraph 6 (1) of the Scheme, the petitioner cannot engage any worker who is not a registered head load worker under the provisions of the Kerala Head load Workers Rules for carrying out the loading and unloading work in his establishment. 3. Respondents 2 and 3 support the arguments advanced by respondents 4 and 5 and further submit that other than demanding work, for which they are legally entitled, the registered head load workers under the Unions have not committed any illegality. It is contended that the petitioner is bound to engage the registered pool workers whenever loading and unloading work in his establishment is carried out manually. There is no claim raised for payment of money for work carried out by another or by machines, asserts the Unions. 4. There is no dispute regarding the fact that no demand for loading and unloading work can be raised when the loading work require special skill and is carried out with the help of machines. It is also not in dispute that some extent of loading and unloading work in the establishment is being done manually. Therefore, there cannot be a demand by the members of respondents 2 to 4, for entrusting the loading and unloading work carried out with the help of cranes to the pool workers. At the same time, the petitioner will have to necessarily engage the services of the registered pool workers for all manual head load work in the petitioner's establishment. It is made clear that on such engagement, the petitioner need pay only the wages prescribed by the 5th respondent Board. The engagement of head load workers from the pool will be subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the District Labour Officer and in case of registration being granted to the petitioner's workers, the petitioner would be free to carry out the head load work in his establishment with those workers. 5. The engagement of head load workers from the pool will be subject to the outcome of the appeal pending before the District Labour Officer and in case of registration being granted to the petitioner's workers, the petitioner would be free to carry out the head load work in his establishment with those workers. 5. We take note of the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board that in many instances, registered workers from other areas are engaged by the employers on temporary basis to defeat the claim of the registered pool workers in the area. The learned Standing Counsel draws our attention to Ext.R4(a) order issued by the Assistant Labour Officer rejecting the applications submitted for registration under Section 26 A of the Head load Workers Rules, by persons claiming to be the employees of the petitioner, on the finding that the applicants were not the workers in the employment of the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Board, if freelancing of registered head load workers is allowed, that would be detrimental to the interest of those workers, as well as the registered pool workers. Hence, without expressing any opinion regarding the findings in Ext.R4(a), we hold that the Assistant Labour Officer or the District Labour Officer, as the case may be, are bound to conduct periodical inspection in establishments where head load workers having registration under 26A are working to ascertain whether such head load workers are regular workers of the establishment and are being provided with work on a regular basis. 6. In this context it would be apposite to refer Section 26 of the Kerala Head load Workers Act which cast a duty upon every employer to maintain such registers and records, which shall be countersigned by such officer and shall be kept in such place, as may be prescribed. The corresponding Rule 27 of the Head load Workers Rules reads as follows: - “27. Maintenance of Registers and Records by Employers - (1) Every employer shall maintain a Register of Employment and Wages in Form No.V. (2) Every employer shall supply to every head load worker wage in Form No.VI on every Saturday, containing particulars for the week ending on that day. Maintenance of Registers and Records by Employers - (1) Every employer shall maintain a Register of Employment and Wages in Form No.V. (2) Every employer shall supply to every head load worker wage in Form No.VI on every Saturday, containing particulars for the week ending on that day. (3) The Registers and records maintained under these rules shall be made available and produced or caused to be produced for inspection at all reasonable hours by an Inspector. (4) The registers and records required to be maintained under these rules shall be kept at the work-spot or [in the office of the employer] and the entries therein relating to each day shall be made on the same day. (5) The employer shall obtain the signature or thumb impression of every head load worker in the Register of Employment and Wages and on the wage card at the time of the disbursement of wages.” 7. The other relevant provision is Paragraph 7 of the Scheme which require every employer in a scheme covered area, engaging or employing head load workers in or for an establishment for trade or business either directly or through a contractor to register the names of the head load workers with the Committee. As per Note (2) of paragraph 7 an employer in the Scheme area who employs head load workers on a permanent and regular basis is exempted from registering his head load workers with the Committee, if he is maintaining the register of employment and wages in Form No.5 of the Kerala Head load Workers Rules and produces sufficient proof that he keeps all records in respect of such permanent head load workers as stipulated in the Kerala Head load Workers (Attached Group) Welfare Scheme, 1995 and does not require the services of the head load workers covered in the scheme. The aforementioned provisions show that there are sufficient safeguards under the Head load Workers Act, the Rules and the Scheme to ensure permanent status to registered head load workers attached to an establishment and not registered with the Committee. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the following principles deduced by the Full Bench in Raghavan V Superintendent of Police [ILR 1999(1) Kerala 107]:- “24. In the light of the above discussion, following principles can be deduced. We also deem it appropriate to reiterate the following principles deduced by the Full Bench in Raghavan V Superintendent of Police [ILR 1999(1) Kerala 107]:- “24. 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 head load 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 engaged in 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 head load workers who are engaged in establishments coining under the Schedule under S.20. (4) All head load 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 head load worker who is not a registered head load worker as per the Kerala Head load Workers Rule, shall be allowed or required to work in that area. It is also necessary that such head load worker shall get a registration under the provisions of the scheme. But, a head load 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 head load worker employed by him as per the provisions contained under R.27 including supply of wage card to any head load worker. (7) It is open to the employer to engage his permanent head load 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 an 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 head load workers also. 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 head load workers also. (9) If a head load worker permanently attached to an establishment is carrying on other work also, that, by itself, will not take him out of me definition of 'head load 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.” Hence, only regular workers in the pay-roll of the employer can be issued with Rule 26A cards and moonlighting of workers with different employers cannot be permitted. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs.