JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The petitioner is before us claiming that the loading and unloading work in the petitioner's gas agency has to be carried on by the delivery boys themselves who are sought to be registered as Headload workers and identity cards applied under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that it is a Scheme covered area and the loading and unloading work has to be entrusted to the members of the Pool constituted by the Head load Workers Welfare Fund Board. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 to 9 also submits that, till date, the pool workers have been carrying on the loading and unloading work and now the attempt of the petitioner is to entrust the loading and unloading work with delivery boys, who are not expected to carry out loading and unloading work in the Scheme covered area . 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the Union members have made an unilateral demand and also had proffered an agreement as seen at Ext.P1 which the petitioner is forced to execute. That is a dispute the petitioner would be entitled to raise before the Welfare Fund Board itself. The learned Standing Counsel submits that, no complaint has been received so far. If at all the petitioner has such a problem, the petitioner can approach the Board to decide on the wages to be paid to workers and can even remit the wages before the Board, or the Committee constituted for the Area; which will disburse it to the Pool members. Definitely, there can be no agreement proffered by the Union of workers unilaterally and there exists no regular employer-employee relationship between the establishment and a head load worker attached to a Pool under the scheme as understood in industrial jurisprudence. The employer of a head load worker attached to a Pool constituted under the Scheme is the committee under Section 18 as defined in Section 2 (e) read with Section 2(i)(ii) of the The Kerala Headload Workers Act of 1978. 5. Considering the petitioner's contention that he is engaging his own delivery boys as loading and unloading workers, we are of the opinion that this would lead to frustration of the intention of the Act itself. 5. Considering the petitioner's contention that he is engaging his own delivery boys as loading and unloading workers, we are of the opinion that this would lead to frustration of the intention of the Act itself. The registration sought under the Act as also issuance of Rule 26A identity cards are for permanent workers who are so engaged for loading and unloading work for wages. 6. In this case, it is obvious, the dispute arose on disputes arising between the petitioner and the pool workers. The wages are to be decided by the Board/Committee and any dispute arising, to be resolved under the provisions of the Act and Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). If there is any complaint of misbehaviour of an individual or group of workers, it has to be brought to the notice of the Board/Committee. 7. Be that as it may, the loading and unloading work of gas cylinders at the godown cannot be said to be an ancillary work of delivery. The full cylinders are brought from the Company to the godown and unloaded there and the empty cylinders loaded back to the vehicles, which transport it back to the Company. This is an activity divorced from the act of delivery, which later activity is on specific booking made by the individual consumers and after issuance of a sale invoice. The loading and unloading of cylinders in the godown of a LPG Agency comes within the ambit of the definition of head load work under the Act of 1978. It is also pertinent that the Schedule listing out the establishments, as defined under Section 2(j) of the Act also includes loading or unloading LPG cylinders in or from vehicles. We are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to seek for identity cards under Rule 26A, for the delivery boys, to carry out the loading and unloading work in the godowns. We, make it clear that the Union of Head load Workers representing the Pool cannot also insist for an agreement, without the junction of the Board or the Committee. We do not find any reason to direct police protection since the petitioner has to concede the loading and unloading work in the godown of his LPG Agency to the Pool workers under the Scheme. The Writ Petition would stand dismissed. We do not find any reason to direct police protection since the petitioner has to concede the loading and unloading work in the godown of his LPG Agency to the Pool workers under the Scheme. The Writ Petition would stand dismissed. There is no order as to costs.