JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is doing business in Thodupuzha. The Shop deals with bio manure, pesticides, fertilizers and other general items necessary for agriculture, plantation and cultivation. The petitioner has wholesale and retail outlets and Godown. Goods bought from manufacturers/dealers are unloaded and stored at the Godown. Part of the goods are brought to the outlet. Goods are also delivered from the Godown and supplying at places required by the customers. The petitioners 2 to 6 are headload workers attached to the establishment of the petitioner. 2. The petitioners state that when the Headload Workers Scheme was operationalised in the area, the pool workers demanded entire loading unloading work of all establishments. There arose certain disputes and in a meeting convened by Merchants Association with all stakeholders, it was agreed that pool workers will be engaged for unloading the in-bound goods brought to godowns and shops. The rest of the work will be carried out by the attached workers of establishment owners. 3. The petitioners 2 to 6 applied for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. The Registering Authority, however, rejected the applications as per Ext.P43 order dated 01.11.2023. The petitioners thereupon filed Ext.P44 appeal. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as per Ext.P46 holding that loading- unloading work in the establishment of the petitioner is being done by the pool workers and grant of registration to attached workers will result in loss of employment to pool workers. The Appellate Authority further held that petitioners 2 to 6 are not doing predominantly loading-unloading work. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.43 order of the Registering Authority rejecting the applications for Rule 26A registration and the Ext.P46 order of the Appellate Authority rejecting their appeal. 4. Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the Standing Counsel representing the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board Office resisted the writ petition. The respondents pointed out that on site inspection by the Registering Authority, it was found that the loading-unloading work in the establishment is being carried out by the pool workers. The 1st petitioner had registered his establishment with the Headload Workers Welfare Board for availing the services of the pool workers. The respondents pointed out that on site inspection by the Registering Authority, it was found that the loading-unloading work in the establishment is being carried out by the pool workers. The 1st petitioner had registered his establishment with the Headload Workers Welfare Board for availing the services of the pool workers. It was also found that petitioners 2 to 6 are doing the work of sales and that the occasional loading unloading work done by the petitioners is 2 to 6, is not the work predominantly done by them. 5. The respondents pointed out that in the judgment in Theresa Jose v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2015 (1) KLT 485 , this Court has held that if an employee is not doing predominantly loading and loading work, he cannot be brought within the definition of headload worker. Therefore, the Registering Authority as well as the Appellate Authority where justified in rejecting the application submitted by petitioners 2 to 6 for registration under Rule 26A. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed, urged the respondents. 6. I have heard the learned Leonard counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel representing the 3rd respondent-Chairman of the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board. 7. The petitioners state that petitioners 2 to 6 are headload workers attached to the establishment of the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner is maintaining all relevant records which would indicate that the petitioners are headload workers attached to the establishment. There was an oral agreement between the Merchant Association and other stakeholders, whereby it was agreed that in-bound unloading work of the establishments would be carried out by the pool workers and the employers will be free to engage their attached workers for carrying out other loading-unloading works. Therefore, petitioners 2 to 6 are entitled to get registration under Rule 26A. Petitioners 2 to 6 would assert that they are predominantly doing loading-unloading work in the establishment of the 1st petitioner. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 rejected the applications for Rule 26A registration finding that the 1st petitioner is utilising the services of pool workers and is paying for the same, for carrying out loading-unloading activities in the establishment. Petitioners 2 to 6 are not doing loading- unloading work predominantly in the establishment. 8. Respondents 1 and 2 rejected the applications for Rule 26A registration finding that the 1st petitioner is utilising the services of pool workers and is paying for the same, for carrying out loading-unloading activities in the establishment. Petitioners 2 to 6 are not doing loading- unloading work predominantly in the establishment. Grant of Rule 26A cards to petitioners 2 to 6 would cause loss of employment opportunity of the pool workers. Now, l shall examine the legality and sustainability of the reasons for rejection of the applications of petitioners 2 to 6 for registration, as reflected in Exts.P43 and P46. 9. The finding of the Registering Authority is that the pool workers under the Kerala Headload Welfare Board are carrying out the loading-unloading work of the 1st petitioner’s establishment and hence, petitioners 2 to 6 are not entitled to Rule 26A registration. It is the specific case of the petitioners that when a dispute arose consequent to the operationalisation of the Headload Workers Scheme in the area, the Merchants Association intervened and an agreement was arrived at. As per this agreement, the pool workers were to unload the goods coming to the establishments in the area and the remaining loading-unloading work in the course of sales can be carried out by attached headload workers. This argument of the petitioner is quoted by the Registering Authority in Ext.P43. The Headload Workers Welfare Board has no contrary argument, as can be seen from Ext.P43. Therefore, the Registering Authority and Appellate Authority committed a mistake in arriving at a conclusion that all loading and unloading work in the establishment of the 1st petitioner is carried out by the pool workers. 10. Another reason advanced by the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority for declining headload workers registration to petitioners 2 to 6, is that petitioners 2 to 6 are not doing headload work/loading unloading work in the establishment predominantly and therefore, petitioners 2 to 6 cannot be treated as headload workers. The suggestion is that petitioners 2 to 6 are salesmen doing loading-unloading work incidentally. 11. Exts.P1 to P5 are applications submitted by the petitioners for registration as headload workers. The applications would indicate that petitioners 2 to 6 claim to be working as headload workers for various periods since 2016. Exts.P7 to P14 are wage slips issued to other employees working in the establishment. 11. Exts.P1 to P5 are applications submitted by the petitioners for registration as headload workers. The applications would indicate that petitioners 2 to 6 claim to be working as headload workers for various periods since 2016. Exts.P7 to P14 are wage slips issued to other employees working in the establishment. Exts.P7 to P14 would show that apart from petitioners 2 to 6, there are other employees working as Manager, Accountant, Clerk, Driver and Salesman/Sales women. Exts.P9, P12 and P13 are wage slips issued to three other employees working as Salesmen. 12. Exts.P15 to P34 are copies of statutory wage slips issued to petitioners 2 to 6 under Rule 27(2) of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. Exts.P35 to P38 are extracts of Form-V Register maintained in the establishment under Rule 27(i). Exts.P35 to P38 would show the duration of work and wages paid to the petitioners as headload workers. 13. Exts.P39 to P41 are movement analysis of various articles sold outward from the establishment on 27.09.2023. Exts.P39 to P41 would establish that there is a considerable amount of outward movement of goods from the establishment on a daily basis. It is not disputed that goods supplied from the shop and Godown of the 1st petitioner are loaded and moved by petitioners 2 to 6. The contention of the respondents is that loading and unloading work is not the predominant work done by petitioners 2 to 6. 14. Considering the nature of business and volume of sales in the establishment, considering Exts.P1 to P5 and Exts.P7 to P38 documents, considering the fact that goods/articles are supplied from Shop as well as Godown of the establishment and considering the fact that the Shop has three other separate Salesmen designated and working as such on permanent basis, there is no reason to hold that petitioners 2 to 6 are working as Salesmen or to hold that they are predominantly doing work other than loading and unloading. 15. The finding of the Registering Authority that the unloading of in-bound goods done by the pool workers constitute substantial loading-unloading work, cannot be accepted. Admittedly petitioners 2 to 6 are doing loading work after sales. Delivery of goods are done from the Godown also. Therefore, there must necessarily exist substantial loading/headload work in the establishment, both in the Shop and the Godown. Admittedly petitioners 2 to 6 are doing loading work after sales. Delivery of goods are done from the Godown also. Therefore, there must necessarily exist substantial loading/headload work in the establishment, both in the Shop and the Godown. While the facts being so, the bald statements of the Registering and Appellate authorities that on enquiry they are convinced that petitioners 2 to 6 are doing loading-unloading work along with sales work, cannot be accepted. The finding of the appellate authority that the petitioners 2 to 6 are loading only the goods unloaded by the pool workers depending on the request of the customers and hence they should be treated as doing predominantly sales work, is perverse. 16. Yet another reason extended by respondents 2 and 3 for declining registration is that grant of registration to the petitioners would adversely affect the income of pool workers and financial position of the Board. It is to be noted that even at present, except unloading of goods brought to the establishment for sale, rest of the loading-unloading work is being carried out by the petitioners 2 to 6. There is an oral agreement in this regard which is being followed. Therefore, grant of registration to the petitioners 2 to 6 will not adversely affect the income of pool workers. 17. Even otherwise, marginal decrease in the income of pool workers cannot be a ground to deny registration to attached headload workers. This is because an attached headload worker has also a fundamental right to carry on any occupation, under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Any unreasonable restriction on the said right cannot stand the scrutiny of law. 18. For all the aforementioned reasons, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Exts.P43 and P46 are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to grant registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 to petitioners 2 to 6, within one month. 19. The writ petition is allowed as above.