JUDGMENT : 1. The 4th petitioner is the proprietor of an establishment by name Kuruvila and Company which deals with roofing, cladding and other hardware items. The petitioners 1 to 3 are his employees. They applied for registration as Head-load Workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Head-load Workers Rules, 1981 (the Rules, for short). By Exhibit P4 order, their application was rejected. Though an appeal was preferred before the 1st respondent, the same ended in dismissal. According to the petitioners, reason for rejection of the application is that registration, if granted to petitioners 1 to 3, would adversely affect the work of other registered head-load workers. The second reason assigned is that the registers maintained by the 4th petitioner were discrepant. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners impugn the order by which registration was refused. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein, it is stated that the petitioners 1 to 3 had filed applications for registration before the authority claiming that they are permanent head-load workers of the 4th petitioner. However, Exhibits P2 (a) to P2(c) applications filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 before the registering authority would show that they are carrying out other works and takes up head-load work only occasionally and that being the case, they cannot be regarded as head-load workers entitled to registration. 3. Sri. V. Sethunath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. According to the learned counsel, the reasons given for rejection of their application cannot be sustained. Relying on a decision of this Court in Rajeev vs. District Labour, 2010 (4) KLT 783 , it was argued that it is not necessary that the persons seeking registration should be head-load workers already working under an employer who seeks to employ them as his permanent attached head-load workers. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Mohammed Shafeek vs. District Labour Officer, 2015 (1) KLT 314 and it was argued that the respondents grievously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that earnings of the other head-load workers in the scheme covered area would be affected. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in Mohammed Shafeek vs. District Labour Officer, 2015 (1) KLT 314 and it was argued that the respondents grievously erred in rejecting the application on the ground that earnings of the other head-load workers in the scheme covered area would be affected. According to the learned counsel, as the establishment of the 4th petitioner is situated is a scheme covered area, denying registration to the petitioners 1 to 3 would amount to violation of their fundamental right to carry on a profession of their choice. Much reliance is placed on the principles laid down in the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan vs. Superintendent of Police, 1998 (2) KLT 732 (FB) to hammer home his contention. 4. Heard Sri. Siju Kamalasanan, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records placed before this Court. 6. Exts.P2(a) to P2(c) are the applications filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 under Form No. IX of the Rules. In the application they have stated in no uncertain terms about the nature of work undertaken by them in the establishment. I extract the same below for ease of reference. Nature of Work: Existing Employment and occasional loading and unloading work 7. In Raghavan (supra), a Full Bench of this Court had occasion to observe as follows in paragraph No. 21 of the report: 21. Yet another point raised before us was the case of workers employed in the establishments, who are doing the work of loading and unloading along with other duties. Learned counsel for the petitioners could contend that in such circumstances, the workers cannot be treated as head-load workers coming under the definition of that term under the Act. We do not think that this is an issue where an answer in general can be given. It will depend on the facts of each case. If the worker is doing loading and unloading work regularly in the establishment, he cannot be taken out of the purview of the Act only for the reason that he is discharging some other duties also. It will depend on the facts of each case. If the worker is doing loading and unloading work regularly in the establishment, he cannot be taken out of the purview of the Act only for the reason that he is discharging some other duties also. On the other hand, if he is principally employed to carry on the work other than unloading and if occasionally he does the work of loading and unloading, it may not be possible to treat him as a head-load worker coming within the definition. But, as mentioned earlier, it will depend on the facts of each case. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The same question had arisen before a Division Bench of this Court in Obrin vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, 2005 (3) KLT 861 wherein it was held that in a case where loading and unloading work is only incidental to the main work of the industrial unit, the worker attached to the employer doing such loading and unloading work cannot be considered to be a head-load worker. 9. Even according to the petitioners, they are not engaged predominantly as head-load workers in the establishment and their work is occasional. In view of the precedents cited above, the petitioners 1 to 3 cannot be regarded as head-load workers entitled to registration under Rule 26A of the Rules. The rejection of the application filed by the petitioners 1 to 3 is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference. 10. This Writ Petition is dismissed.