JUDGMENT : The petitioner is a businessman and is engaged in the sale of electronic and electrical home appliances. He has approached this Court complaining of inaction on the part of the Police in extending protection to him from the obstructions caused by respondents 3 and 4 in running the above business in a legal manner. 2. The petitioner states that he is running a retail business in the name and style as ‘Good Morning Enterprises’ and his distribution business as ‘Sree Lakshmi Distributors’. The items dealt with by him are Televisions, Fridges, Air Conditioners, Washing Machines, Microwave Ovens, Water Purifiers, Food Processors and other home appliances. For the purpose of storing the goods, he has taken on lease Building No.46/784 of Alappuzha Municipal Corporation. He states that he has engaged skilled persons to handle the goods. He further states that the home appliances dealt with by the petitioner contains electronic circuit boards and complex circuitry and if those expensive equipment are mishandled or dropped by workers with no training, the petitioner is likely to sustain insurmountable loss. He has given the names of three workers who are permanently attached to Sreelakshmi Distributors and three workers who are permanently attached to Good Morning Enterprises. Exhibits P7 and P8 are the Muster Roll of the workers maintained by the petitioner. These workers are made accountable for the manner in which they handle the expensive appliances inside the establishment and when the same is delivered and installed in the homes of their customers. He also points out that the manufacturer has also given clear guidelines about the manner by which the appliances are to be handled and reference is made to Exhibit P5 series handling instructions. He states that when he was informed by the official respondents that his workers require registration as headload workers, they have approached the labour officer concerned for procuring cards under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules, 1981 and the same is pending. 3. The petitioner states that the headload workers under the leadership of the respondents 3 and 4 obstructed the work on the premise that they alone are entitled to work in the area and that the petitioner cannot entrust the work with his workers. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and requested that he be afforded protection to carry on his business without any obstruction or hindrance. In the said circumstances, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and requested that he be afforded protection to carry on his business without any obstruction or hindrance. His grievance is that no assistance was rendered which had led him to approach this Court. 4. The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit. It is contended by them that the establishment taken on lease by the petitioner is situated in an area where the functional operation of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (the “scheme” for short) framed under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 (“Act” for short) is extended and therefore, the headload workers have the exclusive right to carry on the loading and unloading works in the area in question. The previous owner of premises owned by the petitioner was an exporter of coir and he used to engage the headload workers. It is contended that the home appliances dealt with by the petitioner are not delicate items and no special skill, expertise or training is required for handling the goods and articles. It is stated that the details of workers mentioned in the petition are the sales and service personnel of the petitioner and they are not workers engaged for loading or unloading the goods. Some of them are not even employees of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed a reply controverting the contentions of the respondents 3 and 4. He has stated that the workers employed by the petitioner for handling the electronic equipment are specially skilled for the purpose and they are excluded from the purview of “headload worker” as defined under S.2(m) of the Act. 6. I have heard Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Azad Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.S. Krishnamoorthy, the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Board. 7. Sri Sahasranaman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the establishment detailed in the Schedule to the Act does not cover the establishment run by the petitioner. He stated that he is engaged in the sale and distribution of electrical and electronic equipment and when the goods are brought to the establishment, skilled workers, whose names and other details are there in Exhibits P7 and P8, unload the goods and they are kept safely in the shelves to be sold later. He stated that he is engaged in the sale and distribution of electrical and electronic equipment and when the goods are brought to the establishment, skilled workers, whose names and other details are there in Exhibits P7 and P8, unload the goods and they are kept safely in the shelves to be sold later. He states that his establishment will not fall within item No.5 of the Schedule as the main work of the establishment is not loading or unloading as stated in the Schedule. The learned counsel would then contend that as the work in his establishment has to be done with due diligence and by skilled persons, the respondents 3 and 4 and their workers, who have no special skill or training to handle such appliances cannot insist that they should be engaged for the same. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel would refer to the judgment of a Larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thoppumpady & Othr. ( 2015 (3) KHC 487 ), Obrin v. Sub Inspector of Police ( 2005 (3) KLT 861 ) and Safa Systems & Solutions v Station House Officer, Palarivattom & Ors. ( 2018 (3) KHC 311 ). 8. Sri.Azad Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the area where the establishment run by the petitioner is a place where the functional operation of the Scheme is extended. Even according to the petitioner, none of his workers have registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot take refuge under item No.5 of the Schedule to deny work to the headload workers. 9. Sri.Krishnamoorthy, the learned standing counsel has reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4. He asserted that the unorganized sector of headload workers in the State have been granted a protection by providing regularity of employment as per the provisions of the Act, and in view of the provisions, no headload worker who is not a registered headload worker can be allowed to work in such establishments. He would point out that the application submitted by the workers for registration under Rule 26A has already been dismissed against which the petitioner has approached the appellate forum. He would point out that the application submitted by the workers for registration under Rule 26A has already been dismissed against which the petitioner has approached the appellate forum. That being the present status, the petitioner will not be justified in denying work to the registered workers is the submission. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced. The Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 has been enacted to regulate the employment of headload workers in the State of Kerala and to make provision for their welfare, for the settlement of disputes in respect of their employment or non-employment and for matters connected therewith. 11. Section 2 is the definition clause, Under section 2(i) “employer” has been defined to mean,- (i) in relation to a headload worker engaged by or through a contractor, the principal employer; (ii) in relation to headload worker who is not employed by any employer or contractor, the committee constituted under Section 18; and (iii) in relation to any other headload worker, the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment in or for which the headload worker is employed and includes any other person to whom the affairs of such establishment are entrusted, whether such person is called an agent manager or by any other name prevailing in such establishment; 12. Section 2 (m) defines a headload worker. Section 2 (m) defines a headload worker. It reads thus:- (m) “headload worker” means a person engaged directly or through a contractor in or for an establishment, whether for wages or not, for loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or articles in or from or to a vehicle or any place in such establishment or stacking articles, excluding delicate or sophisticated articles, in a vehicle or unloading by sliding using manual labour from a mechanically propelled vehicle or a person who does in connection with the work in ports, the works like filling of fertilizers in sacks, weighing and stitching of sacks, bundling, breaking seals of containers, stacking and includes any person not employed by any employer or contractor but engaged in the loading or unloading or carrying on head or person or in a trolly any article or articles for wages, in or from or to a vehicle or any place in such establishment or stacking articles excluding delicate or sophisticated articles in a vehicle or unloading by sliding using manual labour from a mechanically propelled vehicle but does not include a person engaged by an individual for domestic purposes; Explanation I. xxxx xxxx Explanation II. For the purpose of this clause, “delicate” or “sophisticated articles” means articles which require to be handled by trained or skilled persons. 13. The establishment is defined under Section 2(j) to mean an establishment specified in the Schedule and includes the precincts thereof. The Schedule of the Act is extracted below: THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2(j)) “1. Iron and Steel markets or shops. 2. Cloth and cotton markets or shops, 3. Grocery markets or shops. 4. Railway yards and goods sheds. 5. Establishments employing workers for loading or unloading of goods and other operations incidental and connected thereto. 6. Vegetable markets (including onions and potatoes markets). 7. Establishments employing workers for loading or unloading of goods and other operations incidental and connected thereto. 8. Bus stands, Boat jetties, landing places of country crafts. 9. Forest supply and sale coupes, timber and firewood depots. 10. Quarries. 11. Markets (including fish and meat markets) and factories employing workers, which are not covered by any other entries in this Schedule. 12. 8. Bus stands, Boat jetties, landing places of country crafts. 9. Forest supply and sale coupes, timber and firewood depots. 10. Quarries. 11. Markets (including fish and meat markets) and factories employing workers, which are not covered by any other entries in this Schedule. 12. Rubber, Tea, Coffee or Cardamom Plantations where workers are employed or engaged for loading or unloading timber or wooden logs in or from or to vehicle, trolly or cart. 13. Establishments employing or engaging workers for loading or unloading Liquefied Petroleum Gas cylinders in or from, or to a vehicle.” 14. Section 9A of the Act was inserted by Act 13 of 2018 and it reads as follows: 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. (2) Every Headload worker shall be entitled to wages as prescribed by the Government under the provisions of this Act only if their services have been engaged by the employer or the owner of an establishment.] 15. With the above provisions in mind, one may take note of the contentions advanced by the petitioner. 16. The petitioner contends firstly that the establishment run by him will not come within the Schedule. Secondly, he contends that being an establishment dealing with sophisticated electrical and electronic equipment, which are delicate in nature so as to be handled carefully, assistance of skilled persons are required as the loading has to be done with due diligence. In other words, he banks on Explanation II of S.2(m) with the aid of S.9A and contends that electronic and electrical equipments are delicate and sophisticated articles and are required to be handled by trained or skilled persons. 17. Insofar as the first contention as regards the applicability of the Schedule is concerned, even the respondent admits that if the establishment has to be brought within the ambit of any of the items in the Schedule it can only be item No. 5. 17. Insofar as the first contention as regards the applicability of the Schedule is concerned, even the respondent admits that if the establishment has to be brought within the ambit of any of the items in the Schedule it can only be item No. 5. Item No. 5 speaks of establishments employing workers for loading and unloading of goods and other operations incidental and connected thereto. It would be apposite to refer to the observations of a Larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose (supra) wherein the purport and ambit of item No.5 came up for consideration. While considering whether the Full Bench judgment in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police ( 1998 (2) KLT 732 (F.B.)), requires reconsideration insofar as the interpretation given to item No.5 of the Schedule. It was held that one of the pre-conditions for bringing an establishment within the meaning of item No.5 is that in the said establishments, the workers, apart from loading and unloading, do some other incidental or connected operations. However, the emphasis is that the other operations are only incidental and connected. The words ‘incidental’ and ‘connected’ are joined by a conjunction ‘and’. Hence, the meaning of both the words would take the same colour. The first condition for being an establishment under item No. 5 is that the workers shall carry operations of loading and unloading as the main and predominant operation in addition to the incidental and connected operations which are not primary. Their Lordships of the Full Bench in paragraph No. 29 of the judgment held thus: “We thus are of considered opinion that item No. 5 of the Schedule is to be interpreted to be an establishment which fulfills following three conditions: (i) An establishment is employing workers for loading and unloading of goods (ii) the work of loading and unloading for which the worker is employed, is of a predominant nature (iii) the workers employed may also be carrying on other operations incidental and connected thereto.” In other words, in order to attract item No.5, the work of loading and unloading for which the worker is employed is of a predominant nature in the establishment run by the petitioner. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has asserted that he has specially trained workers to handle the equipment and they are the persons who handle the headload work as and when it arises. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner has asserted that he has specially trained workers to handle the equipment and they are the persons who handle the headload work as and when it arises. In other words, he asserts that the loading and unloading in his unit is only occasional and his regular staff could do the same. It has been held in Raghavan (supra) that if principally, the workers are employed to carry on work other than loading and unloading, and the loading and unloading work is only occasional, they do not come within the definition ‘headload workers’. True, in the course of proceedings, some of the petitioner’s workers have applied for cards under R.26A of the Rules. I find from the submissions made across the Bar that their application was rejected and an appeal has been preferred against the said order. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the law laid down by the larger bench in Theresa Jose (supra), the establishment run by the petitioner will not fall within item No.5 to the Schedule. 18. The next question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Explanation II of S.2(m) with the aid of S.9A of the Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the products dealt with by the petitioner are electrical and electronic equipment. He contends that the goods dealt with by him are sophisticated and delicate appliances requiring skill and diligence in handling. Refrigerators, smart televisions, food processors, microwave ovens, water purifiers are all complex electronic equipment with circuitry and breakable parts. There cannot be any doubt that these items are expensive and mishandling of the same can result in serious losses. While handling these items care has to be taken that the same is not handled roughly, that they are kept upright, not subject to shock or fall etc. He has also stated that the workers are made accountable and owing to the said reason, they take extra care while handling the equipment. 19. In Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom & Ors. ( 2018 (3) KLT 9 ), their Lordships of the Division Bench had occasion to consider the question whether in the case of an establishment dealing with mobile phones, headload workers could demand work as a matter of right. 19. In Safa System Solutions v. Station House Officer, Palarivattom & Ors. ( 2018 (3) KLT 9 ), their Lordships of the Division Bench had occasion to consider the question whether in the case of an establishment dealing with mobile phones, headload workers could demand work as a matter of right. It was held as follows in paragraph No.11 of the judgment. Section 2(m) of the Act defines “headload worker”. Explanation - II to the definition very clearly excludes stacking of articles which are delicate or sophisticated. Mobile phones would, undoubtedly, come within that exception of delicate and sophisticated article and cannot be loaded and unloaded by persons who are not trained and skilled to do such job with due diligence. Any damage to an expensive mobile phone would result in huge loss to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is justified in engaging persons, who are trained in dealing with such sophisticated and delicate articles. The 5th respondent and their workers cannot, therefore, claim to have any right for loading and unloading of mobile phones in the establishment of the petitioner. 20. I am of the considered opinion that the principles laid above will apply on all fours in the instant case as well. Smart televisions, Microwave Ovens, Food Processors and multi-door Fridges are much heavier and require more diligent handling than mobile phones which are lighter. As held in Safa Systems (supra) any damage to such costly appliances would result in the petitioner sustaining huge loss. Hence, I am of the considered view that the petitioner was well justified in engaging his own workers, who are skilled and trained in handling such sophisticated and delicate articles. The party respondents cannot insist that they have a rightful claim to have any right for loading the electrical and electronic equipment in the establishments of the petitioner. 21. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to afford adequate protection to the petitioner and his establishment to enable them to carry on the business and any incidental loading and unloading works in building Nos.46/784 and 46/785 without any threat or interference by the respondents 3 and 4 or any other person claiming under them. This Writ Petition will stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs.