JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar., J. The Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.10.2021 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.11601/2021. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows : The writ petitioner is the proprietor of MAB Vegetables, Onion and Potato Merchants in Muvattupuzha, an establishment dealing with wholesale marketing of onions and potatoes. He had approached the writ court aggrieved by the rejection of an application, preferred by him in respect of nine regular workers attached to his establishment, for registration in terms of Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 [hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”]. Initially, applications were preferred in respect of four persons [Exts.P1 to P4] on 23.11.2020, and thereafter, in respect of a further five persons [Exts.P5 to P9] on 2.12.2020. It was the specific case of the petitioner that the persons, in respect of whom he had preferred applications for registration as Headload workers, were employed by him in his establishment, and that, notwithstanding the said fact, the Assistant Labour Officer, at first instance, and the District Labour Officer, in appeal, had rejected the applications preferred in respect of the nine workers for registration under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules. Exts.P12 and P15 were produced as the orders passed by the Assistant Labour officer and District Labour Officer respectively, and were impugned in the writ petition that sought for a quashing of the said orders, and a direction to the Assistant Labour Officer to grant registration to the petitioner's workers pursuant to Exts.P1 to P9 applications preferred by them. 2. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the Assistant Labour Officer, the reasons given in Ext.P12 order were reiterated and sought to be justified. In particular, the stand taken by the Assistant Labour Officer was that the establishment of the petitioner had taken registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 in 2020, and the said registration had been renewed up to 2021. In the application submitted for registration of the establishment for the years 2018 to 2020, the writ petitioner had mentioned that he had only three workers under his employment in the establishment, whereas, the applications for registration were preferred in respect of nine persons who were stated to be under the petitioner's employment. In the application submitted for registration of the establishment for the years 2018 to 2020, the writ petitioner had mentioned that he had only three workers under his employment in the establishment, whereas, the applications for registration were preferred in respect of nine persons who were stated to be under the petitioner's employment. It was also pointed out that the establishment of the petitioner had been engaging the services of headload workers registered under the Board from the year 2014 onwards, and all the loading and unloading works in the establishment were being carried out by the pool workers under the Board Sub Committee at Muvattupuzha. It was also averred that at the time of an inspection conducted at the petitioner’s establishment by the Assistant Labour Officer on 24.1.2021, the loading and unloading works were being done by the pool workers and not by the persons stated to have been employed by the petitioner. The Assistant Labour Officer was therefore of the view that the stand of the petitioner, that he had employed nine persons for doing headload work, was factually incorrect, and on the contrary, he had always been relying on pool workers for doing the loading and unloading work in his establishment. Ext.P12 order was sought to be justified on the further contention that, granting a registration to the nine persons sponsored by the petitioner would result in depriving the pool workers already registered with the Board in the scheme covered area of their means to livelihood. 3. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, followed the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajeev v. District Labour Officer – [ 2010 (4) KLT 783 ] that was subsequently followed in Manzoor v. District Labour Officer -[ 2021 (5) KLT 554 ] to find that registration of a headload worker to the establishment does not depend upon prior work as a headload worker, and that the only requirement contemplated under the Act for registration as a headload worker was that the applicant must have the necessary physique to do loading and unloading work. It was observed that physique to do loading and unloading work had to be appreciated objectively, and when a worker expressed his willingness to work as a headload worker and the owner of an establishment agreed to engage him as a headload worker, the same was sufficient to treat him as a headload worker. Dealing with the other objection raised by the authorities that the registration, if granted to the workers employed by the writ petitioner, would deprive the pool workers of work that they could legitimately expect, it was held, placing reliance on Gangadharan v. Abdul Nasir -[ 2016 (4) KLT 592 ] that, existing registered unattached workers had no right to prevent the registration of other workers as headload workers attached to an establishment. Exts.P12 and P15 orders that were impugned in the writ petition were therefore set aside, and the Assistant Labour Officer was directed to grant registration to the applicants in Exts.P1 to P9 applications as headload workers, and to issue them the necessary identity cards as contemplated under Rule 26A (3) of the Rules. 4. Before us, it is the primary contention of Sri.Anand, the learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Adv.Sri.Vishnu S. Arikkattil, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Board that Rule 26A of the Rules provides for registration of headload workers, and hence, the Rule presupposes that the applicant seeking registration must answer to the description of 'headload worker' as defined under Section 2(m) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978 [hereinafter referred to as the 'Act']. On the facts of the instant case, it is stated that while it was admitted by the writ petitioner that the loading and unloading work in the establishment was earlier carried out by the pool workers, and it was specifically found by the Assistant Labour Officer, on inspection, that it was the pool workers who were doing the loading and unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner, the stand of the writ petitioner that he had employed nine persons as headload workers in his establishment could not be accepted as factually correct. He also questions the correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the only requirement for getting registration as a headload worker is the possession of a good physique. He also questions the correctness of the finding of the learned Single Judge that the only requirement for getting registration as a headload worker is the possession of a good physique. He further points out that if all the registered employers are permitted to recruit and maintain their own employees for attending to the headload work in their respective establishments, the job opportunities of the pool workers will be lost for ever, and that would frustrate the whole object of the Scheme drawn up in terms of the Act and Rules. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner Sri.Biju Abraham would justify the findings of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and seek an early implementation of the directions in the same, after dismissing the writ appeal as devoid of merit. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. Before we proceed to analyse the facts in the instant case, it would be apposite to refer to some of the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act and Rules so as to appreciate the statutory Scheme, in the backdrop of which, the rights of the parties have to be considered. 7. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Kerala Headload Workers Act, reads as follows: “The Government are convinced that headload workers in this State are being exploited by their employers in the matter of payment of their wages and other matters connected with their welfare. 7. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Kerala Headload Workers Act, reads as follows: “The Government are convinced that headload workers in this State are being exploited by their employers in the matter of payment of their wages and other matters connected with their welfare. It is, therefore, considered necessary to enact a legislation for the purpose of regulating the employment of headload workers in employment connected with trade, business, manufacture of supply to customers and making provision for their welfare, for the settlement of disputes in respect of their employees and non-employment and for matters connected therewith.” The Preamble to the Kerala Headload Workers Act reads as follows: “WHEREAS it is expedient 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.” Section 2 of the Kerala Headload Workers Act defines various terms for the purposes of the Act, and accordingly, an ‘employer’ for the purposes of the Act is defined as follows in Section 2(i): “(i) "employer" means – (i) in relation to a headload worker employed or engaged by or through a contractor, the principal employer; (ii) in relation to a headload worker who is not employed or engaged by any employer or contractor, the Committee appointed under Section 18; [Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-clause, a 'headload worker' means a person who is registered under the Scheme and paid wages by the Committee either through employer or contractor.] (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 What is of particular significance in the above definition is that the legislature has consciously used two terms viz. ‘employed’ and ‘engaged’ in juxtaposition with each other to refer to the different modes by which a headload worker can be called upon to do headload work. This aspect has been noticed by a Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police – [1998 KHC 447]. ‘employed’ and ‘engaged’ in juxtaposition with each other to refer to the different modes by which a headload worker can be called upon to do headload work. This aspect has been noticed by a Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police – [1998 KHC 447]. The definition also impliedly identifies the employer in relation to (i) an attached worker i.e. a worker employed or engaged to do work solely in a particular establishment and in (ii) and (iii) to an unattached worker i.e. a worker engaged to do headload work but whose work is not confined to any particular establishment. The term ‘employer’ is accordingly used to refer to the person who employs or engages a headload worker, either directly or through a contractor and also to the committee or the person in charge of the establishment for which the headload worker is employed. The term ‘headload worker’ is defined in Section 2(m) as follows: The term ‘headload worker’ is defined in Section 2(m) as follows: “(m) "headload worker" means a person employed or 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:- For the purpose of this clause, “a person engaged by an individual for domestic purposes” means any person engaged by an individual for, – shifting including transportation of furniture, personal effects and other household articles for domestic use; or (ii) working in connection with the shifting of articles of a dwelling house of a person including work in connection with religious or social or public functions; or (iii) cutting, removing, shifting and transportation of trees and wood for personal use; or (iv) constructing or repairing and maintenance of house including the shifting and transportation of construction materials, equipments or machinery for personal use and not for the purpose of trade; or (v) dismantling, demolishing and shifting of old building materials or equipments including their transportation which is not for industrial or commercial purpose; or (vi) shifting and transportation of animals for personal use; or (vii) shifting and transportation of materials including agricultural implements, agricultural machinery, raw materials, agricultural produces, other materials related to agricultural operations in such person's land; or (viii) doing such other work or activity or process which the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, specify to be a domestic purpose; Explanation II:- For the purpose of this clause, “delicate or sophisticated articles” mean articles which require to be handled by trained or skilled persons;]” It can be seen from the above definition that while in the case of a person employed or engaged directly or through a contractor in or for an establishment (an attached worker), it is sufficient if the employment or engagement is, inter alia, for loading or unloading works, in the case of an unattached worker he must be engaged in loading and unloading works. In other words, in the case of an attached worker, who is either employed or engaged directly or through a contractor for an establishment, he need not already be engaged in loading or unloading works at the time of his employment or engagement. There need only be an intention to employ or engage him for such works in the immediate future. An unattached worker, however, must be actually engaged in loading or unloading works, in praesenti, to come within the definition of headload worker. 8. Section 9A of the Act, introduced with effect from 07.04.2018, deals with the engagement of a headload worker and mandates as follows: “9A. An unattached worker, however, must be actually engaged in loading or unloading works, in praesenti, to come within the definition of headload worker. 8. Section 9A of the Act, introduced with effect from 07.04.2018, deals with the engagement of a headload worker and mandates as follows: “9A. Engaging the services of headload workers:--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 ofmachinery, 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.” 9. Section 9A mandates that with effect from 07.04.2018, an employer or owner of an establishment can ‘engage’ only such headload workers as are registered in terms of the Act and Rules. Since Section 9A begins with the words ‘subject to the provisions of the Act’ and Section 2(m) which defines a 'headload worker' for the purposes of the Act makes a distinction between an attached and unattached worker, the requirement of being registered under the Act applies only when a headload worker, who is not attached to any establishment, is ‘engaged’ by an employer. The distinction, in other words, is between a headload worker who is not attached to any establishment through an employment or engagement thereunder, and one who is attached to the establishment through an employment or engagement thereunder. As per the provisions of Section 9A, the requirement of having a registration under the Act at the time of their engagement applies only to the former and not to the latter. The above interpretation accords with the view taken in this regard by a Full Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar R. and Others v. District Labour Officer, Tvm. and Others – [ 2021 (2) KHC 215 ], in relation to attached workers. 10. The above interpretation accords with the view taken in this regard by a Full Bench of this Court in Suresh Kumar R. and Others v. District Labour Officer, Tvm. and Others – [ 2021 (2) KHC 215 ], in relation to attached workers. 10. Section 13 of the Act deals with Schemes that can be framed by the Government for the welfare of headload workers and sub-section (2) thereof gives an indication of the welfare measures that such Scheme may provide for, reads as follows: “13. Scheme:-- (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder a scheme made under sub-section (1) may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely: (a) for the welfare of headload workers; (b) for health and safety measures for headload workers; (bb) for providing benefits under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (Central Act 34 of 1948) to headload workers.] (c) for the constitution of any fund or funds including provident fund for the benefit of headload workers, the vesting of such funds, the payment of contributions to be made to such funds and all matters relating thereto; (d) for regulating the recruitment and entry into the scheme of the headload workers, and the registration of headload workers and employers including the maintenance of registers, removal either temporarily or permanently, of names from the registers and the imposition of fee for registration; (e) for regulating the employment of headload workers and the terms and conditions of such employment, including maternity benefit, leave with wages, provision for gratuity and conditions as to weekly and other holidays and pay in respect thereof; (f) for pooling of headload workers who are not employed under any employer or contractor; (g) for the manner in which, and the persons by whom, the cost of operating the scheme is to be defrayed, including any contributions to be paid by employers and headload workers and the rate of such contribution; (h) for appointing persons and authorities who or which are to be responsible for the administration of the scheme and for the administration of funds constituted for the purposes aforesaid; (i) for such incidental and supplementary matters as may be necessary or expedient for giving effect to the purposes of the scheme; (j) generally for making better provision as regards the terms and conditions of employment of headload workers. Section 25 of the Act deals with the preparation and maintenance of a register of headload workers and reads as follows: “25. Register of headload workers .-(1) Such authority or officer as may be prescribed shall prepare a register of headload workers working within its or his jurisdiction. (2) The register shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (3) The register shall be maintained by the authority or officer as the case may be, in such manner as may be prescribed.” Similarly, Section 26 deals with the registers and records that an employer must maintain and reads as follows: “26. Maintenance of Registers and records by employers .- (1) Every employer shall maintain such registers and records as may be prescribed. (2) The registers and records referred to in subsection (1)shall contain such particulars and shall be countersigned by such officer and shall be kept in such place, as may be prescribed.” 11. It is relevant to note that while Sections 25 and 26 of the Act only oblige the authority concerned or the employer concerned to maintain a register of headload workers, the registration of a headload worker and the procedure leading to such registration is specified only in the Rules. Rule 26A that deals with Registration reads as follows: “26A. Registration of Headload Workers.-- (1) Any headload worker may submit his application for registration in Form IX to the Registering Authority concerned, with as many additional copies as there are employers or contractors from whom he claims to work. (2) On receipt of such application the Registering Authority shall issue notice in Form X to the employers or contractors from whom the headload worker claims work and in area where the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 is in operation, to the Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board Local Committee in such area with copy of the application inviting objections, if any, on such application. (3) After considering the objections, if any, received and after giving an opportunity of being heard, the Registering Authority shall register the name of the headload worker in the Register of Headload Workers, on being satisfied that the headload worker is eligible for registration and communicate the fact to the parties within two weeks of such registration. The Registering Authority shall also issue identity card to the registered headload worker. The Registering Authority shall also issue identity card to the registered headload worker. If the name is not registered, the Registering Authority shall communicate the fact to the applicant with reasons therefor. (3A) Where the Identity Card of registration granted to a headload worker under sub-rule (3) is defaced or accidentally lost or irrecoverably destroyed, he shall apply for a duplicate identity card along with two copies of recent photograph and a fine of Rs.25(Rupees twenty-five only) to the Registering authority concerned. The Registering Authority may after making necessary enquiries and satisfying himself of the genuineness, issue a duplicate identity card. (4) The Registration of a person as headload worker may be cancelled by the Deputy Labour Officer of the District Labour Office concerned or where there is no post of Deputy Labour Officer in that District Labour Office, by the Assistant Labour Officer grade I after satisfying himself on a report from Registering Authority that the Registration has been obtained by fraud or mistake: Provided that not less than one month's previous notice in writing specifying the ground on which the registration is proposed to be cancelled shall be given by the authority empowered to cancel the registation to the headload worker, before the registration is cancelled.” 12. A mere reading of the provision makes it clear that the applicant for registration must be a person who qualifies to be a headload worker by satisfying the conditions prescribed in the definition of headload worker in Section 2(m) of the Act. Thus, only a person attached to an establishment through employment or engagement thereunder, can apply for registration under Rule 26A since he alone would satisfy the definition of headload worker without falling foul of the provisions of Section 9A of the Act. A person who is not attached to any establishment, cannot directly apply for registration because, owing to the bar under Section 9A against engagement of unregistered workers for loading and unloading work, he would not be able to satisfy the pre-requisite of engagement in loading and unloading work prior to applying for registration. 13. It is also significant that only a headload worker who is registered in terms of Rule 26A can work in a scheme covered area as is apparent from Clause 6 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 that reads as follows: “6. 13. It is also significant that only a headload worker who is registered in terms of Rule 26A can work in a scheme covered area as is apparent from Clause 6 of the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 that reads as follows: “6. Procedure for regulation of employment of headload workers on Scheme areas:-(1) No headload worker who is not a registered headload worker under the provision of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies from the date of commencement of the functional operation of Scheme in the area. Provided that not less than one month's previous notice in writings pecifying the ground on which the registration is proposed to be cancelled shall be given by the authority empowered to cancel the registation to the headload worker, before the registration is cancelled. (2) From the date of commencement of the functional operation of the Scheme in any area, no headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer or contractor shall be allowed or required to work in any area to which the Scheme applies unless he is granted a further registration under the provisions of this Scheme.” 14. Thus, as per the provisions of the Act and Rules as they now stand, pursuant to the amendments effected thereto in 2008, 2018 and 2021, an applicant for registration as a headload worker has to be a person who is employed or engaged either directly or through a contractor in an establishment for doing any of the activities that qualify such person to be a headload worker within the meaning of the term under Section 2(m) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'headload work'). In other words, a person seeking registration as a headload worker must first secure an employment or engagement for such purposes in an establishment. It is only thereafter that he can do headload work and in turn, become eligible to apply for registration under Rule 26A. That being the apparent scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that the absence of a provision for registration of a person who, despite having a good physique, has not done any headload work, is arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. 15. That being the apparent scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that the absence of a provision for registration of a person who, despite having a good physique, has not done any headload work, is arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. 15. It has to be borne in mind that the Act is a piece of welfare legislation and the recent amendment of 2021, that reduced the maximum permissible weight to be carried by an adult worker from 75 Kgs to 55 Kgs was prompted by the recommendations of the International Labour Organisation Maximum Weight Convention No.127 and 128 that were issued in the interests of health and safety of such workers. Thus the scheme of the Act and Rules is one that is aligned to international labour conventions to which our country is a signatory. The statutory scheme that takes note of the health and safety aspects of headload workers, and prescribes a requirement of employment as a headload worker as a prerequisite for seeking registration as one, has to be seen as intended to ensure that only those who are capable of doing headload work are registered in terms of the Act and Rules. Thus, a mere willingness on the part of an individual to do such work cannot confer on him a right to seek registration under the Act and Rules, and the conditions stipulated for registration cannot be seen as imposing unreasonable restrictions on such person’s fundamental rights under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. 16. Our analysis of the statutory scheme leads us to draw the following conclusions: a. The definition of headload worker under Section 2(m) of the Act makes a distinction between an attached worker and an unattached worker. While the former is a person who is employed or engaged by an employer, either directly or through a contractor, to work in a particular establishment, the latter is a person who is not engaged to work in any particular establishment. b. The attached worker, at the time of his employment or engagement need not be registered in terms of Rule 26A. It is sufficient that he is engaged for the purpose of doing headload work in the establishment. This is so even if the establishment is located in a scheme covered area because the 1983 Scheme does not apply to an attached worker. It is sufficient that he is engaged for the purpose of doing headload work in the establishment. This is so even if the establishment is located in a scheme covered area because the 1983 Scheme does not apply to an attached worker. The unattached worker, however, has to be a registered headload worker in view of the specific provisions of Section 9A of the Act. c. An attached worker must do headload work in the particular establishment to which he is attached, before seeking registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A of the Rules. The enquiry contemplated under Rule 26A for granting registration is essentially a fact-finding exercise to ensure that the applicant for registration is actually doing headload work in the establishment concerned. The evidence in that regard must be found in the records maintained by the employer as mandated in Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules. d. An unattached worker must first get himself attached to an establishment and do headload work therein. Only thereafter can he seek registration as a headload worker in terms of Rule 26A. The Act and Rules do not permit a person who is not attached to any establishment to apply for registration as a headload worker without first demonstrating his capacity to do headload work in an establishment. e. While the above statutory scheme is apparent from a reading of the statutory provisions, it cannot be seen as one violating the fundamental rights of any person under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution since Article 19 (6) makes the right subject to reasonable restrictions that can be imposed in the interests of the general public. A restriction in a welfare legislation that is intended to safeguard the health of a worker has to be seen as in the interests of the general public. f. In the light of our findings as above, we do not approve of the view taken in Rajeev (Supra) or Manzoor (Supra) that even an unattached worker can apply for registration under Rule 26A without doing any headload work, so long as he has a good physique and is willing to do such work. f. In the light of our findings as above, we do not approve of the view taken in Rajeev (Supra) or Manzoor (Supra) that even an unattached worker can apply for registration under Rule 26A without doing any headload work, so long as he has a good physique and is willing to do such work. The view in Rajeev (Supra), that was followed in Manzoor (Supra), was taken without noticing the distinction between attached and unattached workers in the definition of a headload worker, as also the fact that the pre-requisite of being a registered head load worker, for being allowed or required to work in a scheme covered area, applied only to a ‘headload worker who is not permanently employed by an employer or contractor’ ie. an unattached worker. The said decisions do not lay down the correct law in this regard and hence we overrule the said decisions on the above point. g. An attached worker, on the other hand, does not have to be registered as a headload worker for doing headload work. He can be employed or engaged to do such work in the establishment of his employer and thereafter seek registration in terms of Rule 26A once he starts doing headload work in that establishment. Further, so long as he is in the employment or engagement of an employer and attached to the latter’s establishment, he will not come under the coverage of the 1983 Scheme either. Clause 6 of the Scheme will therefore not be attracted in his case, to prevent him from working in a scheme covered area. h. When an application for registration is preferred by an attached worker, the enquiry by the registering authority must only be to ascertain whether the applicant is actually engaged in doing headload work in the establishment to which he is attached and if so, whether the headload work done by him is of predominant nature. The information in that regard can be gathered from the registers maintained by the employed in terms of Section 26 of the Act read with the Rules as also through a physical inspection at the premises of the establishment concerned. The registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections to granting of such registrations. The registering authority cannot reject an application for registration on the ground that existing pool workers have raised objections to granting of such registrations. Unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration under Rule 26A to a worker who is attached to an establishment. It has been so held by a Division Bench of this Court in Gangadharan (Supra). Their objections can only be raised at a time when an attached worker, who gets registered in terms of Rule 26A relinquishes his employment or engagement with the establishment to which he was attached, and then seeks to join the scheme in the area concerned, as a registered but unattached worker. 17. On the facts of the instant case, we find that the applications for registration put in by the 9 workers of the writ petitioner have been rejected by the registering authority and the appellate authority on two grounds viz. (i) that the workers were not seen engaged in headload work on the date of inspection and (ii) that granting them registration would affect the employment opportunities of the existing registered pool workers in the area. In our view, while the second ground is legally untenable and cannot be sustained, as rightly found by the learned single judge, the first ground is certainly one that the registering authority can take into account, along with other material that suggests that the applicants were not employed or engaged to do any headload work for the establishment in question, or even if so employed or engaged, the work of loading and unloading was not of predominant nature. Such an enquiry would be in line with the rights in connection with registration and employment of headload workers recognised by a Full Bench of this Court in Raghavan (Supra) that was affirmed on the said point by a larger Bench of this Court in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police – [ 2015 (1) KLT 485 (LB)]. Paragraphs 21 and 24 of the Full Bench judgment in Raghavan (Supra) read as follows: “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. Paragraphs 21 and 24 of the Full Bench judgment in Raghavan (Supra) read as follows: “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 headload 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. On the other hand, if he is principally employed to carry on the work other than loading and unloading and if occasionally he does the work of loading and unloading, it may not be possible to treat him as a headload worker coming within the definition. But, as mentioned earlier, it will depend on the facts of each case.. 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. 2(j). (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. 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 worker 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 the 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.” In the instant case, an enquiry on the lines indicated above was not done by the registering authority and further, it is the specific case of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that on the date of the inspection the attached workers of the establishment were not permitted to engage in headload work on account of the insistence by the pool workers that only registered headload workers could be employed or engaged in an establishment situated in a scheme covered area. Under the circumstances while upholding the judgment of the learned single judge to the limited extent that it quashes the orders impugned in the writ petition, we set aside the judgment to the extent it lays down propositions by following the judgments in Rajeev (Supra) and Manzoor (Supra) and issues directions to the registering authority based thereon. Under the circumstances while upholding the judgment of the learned single judge to the limited extent that it quashes the orders impugned in the writ petition, we set aside the judgment to the extent it lays down propositions by following the judgments in Rajeev (Supra) and Manzoor (Supra) and issues directions to the registering authority based thereon. The registering authority shall now consider the applications preferred by the nine workers of the writ petitioner afresh by ascertaining whether they are employed or engaged for doing headload work of a predominant nature in the establishment of the writ petitioner. He shall also take note of the specific case of the writ petitioner that the said workers were engaged/employed to do headload work that was earlier being done by pool workers in the area. The enquiry in this regard shall be completed, and orders passed on the applications for registration, within an outer time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Appeal is thus partly allowed as above.