JUDGMENT : K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. 1. We are again faced with a situation where an establishment is before us seeking protection for carrying out loading and unloading work by use of machines. The contention is that they use cranes to load the logs cut in the estate of the 1st petitioner which has to be removed by the 2nd petitioner. There is no scope for engagement of head load workers is the submission. 2. Respondents 5 and 6 Unions appear through Counsel and counter affidavit has also been filed. The learned Counsel for the respondent Unions submits that their members have identity cards issued under Rule 26A, one of which is produced as Ext.R5(a) and this enables them to carry out loading and unloading work in the area. It is hence contended that the work of loading and unloading in the petitioners' estate also has to be conceded to the members of respondents 5 and 6. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that even earlier the particular area was found to be not one which is covered under the Scheme under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (hereinafter “the Scheme”). Ext.P6 judgment is also relied on to contend that the use of mechanical device and employment of skilled workers in such mechanical device have been permitted by this Court always, as against any claim raised by headload workers of that area. In the present case, since cranes are being used, definitely the implementation of the scheme or otherwise will be of no consequence. 4. It is then pointed out that amendment has been made to the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (for brevity “the Act”) on 7.4.2018 whereby Section 9A has been introduced. Section 9A(1) with the proviso is extracted here under: “ 9A. Engaging the services of headload workers - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, an employer shall engage a headload worker registered under the Act in connection with the work of his establishment: Provided that in the case of works which require assistance of skilled persons and which are to be done with due diligence or require the aid of machinery, such works may be done by engaging the persons having such skill or by the machinery, as the case may be.” Hence what has been judicially permitted has also now been legislatively incorporated in the Act. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents however urge that this cannot efface the right which they obtained by the issuance of Rule 26A card. In this context, we have to notice the provisions of the Act, the Scheme and The Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 (henceforth “the Rules” for short). The Act by Section 2(m) defines a Headload worker as a person employed directly or indirectly through a contractor in an establishment; with specific activities of loading and unloading, included and excluded. An establishment is defined in Section 2(j) as one specified in the Schedule. The definition of employer in Section 2(i) indicates three types of employment, one under a Contractor [clause (i)] under the Committee [clause (ii)] and under the person who is in charge of an establishment. The distinction is in so far as the employment being in the nature of a Contract, in the Pool constituted under the Scheme and permanent employees of an establishment. The Act also confers on the Government to provide one or more Schemes for any employments in one or more areas, by a notification in the Gazette. Similarly by a notification it confers power to constitute a Board (Section 14) and a Committee (Section 18) for a revenue district and as many Special Committees for specified areas; all of which bodies would implement the Act and have the powers, duties and functions as conferred by the Act, Rules and the Scheme. 6. The Rules under Rule 26A provide for registration of head load workers by the Registering Authority who is defined as the Assistant Labour Officer [Rule 2(e)] and issuance of identity cards on registration. Hence any person working as a head load worker in any of the three employments; under a Contractor or directly under an establishment or in a Pool within the Scheme area, under a Committee, may register himself as a head load worker under Rule 26A, which establishes his identity as a head load worker and entitles him to carry out loading and unloading work in the area of his operation, whether there is a Scheme notified for the area or not. Pertinent is the fact the Act or the Rule does not prohibit the loading and unloading work to be carried out even by an unregistered worker, if there is no Scheme implemented for an area. Pertinent is the fact the Act or the Rule does not prohibit the loading and unloading work to be carried out even by an unregistered worker, if there is no Scheme implemented for an area. However as we shall presently notice, in a Scheme covered area, the position is different. 7. The Scheme, by Section 6(1) prohibits any person from working in any area to which the Scheme is applied, without a registration under the Act and sub-section (2) further provides a prohibition for any worker other than a permanent or contractual employee from working in an area to which the Scheme is extended, without a registration under the Scheme. The registration under the Scheme, by Section 6A is to be done by the Convener of the Committee constituted for the Scheme covered area. Such registration under the Scheme can only be to head load workers having valid registration under Section 26A. In the Scheme covered area, a head load worker under any category of employment has to have a registration under the Act and if not permanently employed has to have a registration under the Scheme too. Only the card issued under Rule 6A of the Scheme entitles a person to be a member of the Pool constituted by the committee for an area. 8. We are fortified in our interpretation by the principles deduced by a Full Bench in Raghavan vs. 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 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 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 headload workers who are engaged in establishments coming under the Schedule under S.20. (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 Headload Workers Rule, shall be allowed or required to work in that area. (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 Headload Workers Rule, 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 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 headload workers also. (9) If a headload worker permanently attached to an establishment is carrying on other work also, that, by itself, will not take him out of me 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.” 9. A person can, after the enactment, work as a head load worker if he is issued with identity card under Rule 26A, if no Scheme is made applicable. This only enables the person who has been issued with the identity card to avail the remedies as provided in the Act and Rules but does not give him a right to claim work from the employers in the area. This only enables the person who has been issued with the identity card to avail the remedies as provided in the Act and Rules but does not give him a right to claim work from the employers in the area. This is because there is no prohibition in the area where the Scheme is not applied, for any other person to be so engaged. For the purpose of such a right to crystallize, it is necessary that a Scheme is introduced to the area and a Pool instituted by the committee constituted by the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board. On such institution of a Pool, the persons with Rule 26A cards are considered for issuance and issued with Rule 6A cards. In that circumstance, definitely there is a right conferred on the Pool members to seek for head load work from the establishments coming within the Schedule and within the area notified under the Act. Even then, it is an accepted proposition that when an employer of an establishment has his own workers regularly employed, issued with Rule 26A cards, there would be no right on the members in the Pool constituted for the area to claim loading and unloading work from such establishments. 10. On the above reasoning, we find that the petitioners are entitled to carry out loading and unloading work with their own workers especially since the contention is that they are using cranes to load logs to the vehicles for transporting them out of the estate. We also notice that the scheme has not been extended to the area in which the petitioners are carrying on their loading and unloading work. Hence, if any obstruction is caused by respondents 5 and 6, necessarily the police would afford protection. 11. Writ petition is allowed. No order on costs.