JUDGMENT : N. NAGARESH, J. Petitioners 1 to 3 state that they are appointed as headload workers by SARASHH DISTRIBUTORS, of which the 5th respondent is the Managing Partner. The Firm deals with life saving medicines, other pharmaceuticals and supplements. Most of the products dealt with by the Firm are fragile and sophisticated. The petitioners have undergone rigorous training for handling the products. 2. The petitioners submitted Exts.P7, P8 and P9 applications to the 2nd respondent-Assistant Labour Officer seeking registration as headload workers attached to the establishment of the 5th respondent, under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981. On receipt of Exts.P7 to P9, the 2nd respondent visited the establishment premises on 27.04.2024. The petitioners and the 5th respondent were present in the premises. The 5th respondent gave a statement to the 2nd respondent to the effect that they require skilled labourers for handling fragile and sophisticated medicines. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioners are trained staff. 3. The 2nd respondent verified Exts.P1 to P3 appointment orders issued to the petitioners. Due to the delay in getting GST registration, the commencement of the business was delayed. The establishment had already obtained licence from the Local Self Government Institution. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications for registration filed by the petitioners stating that the establishment is not maintaining registers as required under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules and that the establishment has not yet commenced business operations. 4. The petitioners state that the business of the establishment had commenced on 01.05.2024. The 5th respondent had maintained necessary records and registers. Ext.P13 is a register endorsed by the Assistant Labour Officer. Aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioners filed Ext.P14 appeal. The Appellate Authority-DLO dismissed the appeal as per Ext.P15 order. 5. The petitioners state that the 5th respondent had filed W.P.(C) No.22993/2024 seeking police protection. In Writ Appeal No.1089/2024 arising from the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Assistant Labour Officer to certify the consignments of sensitive and fragile goods. The Division Bench also directed that the petitioners should not be prevented from unloading those consignments. The police was directed to give adequate protection if necessary. 6. The petitioners state that the Assistant Drug Controller has issued Ext.P16 letter to the 5th respondent directing that all medicines handled by the 5th respondent must be managed only by trained staff. The Division Bench also directed that the petitioners should not be prevented from unloading those consignments. The police was directed to give adequate protection if necessary. 6. The petitioners state that the Assistant Drug Controller has issued Ext.P16 letter to the 5th respondent directing that all medicines handled by the 5th respondent must be managed only by trained staff. The Assistant Drug Controller issued Ext.P17 letter to the Assistant Labour Officer mentioning the fragile items which can be handled only by trained staff. 7. The petitioners challenge Ext.P15 order by which the appeals of the petitioners stand rejected. The rejection of their applications for registration as headload workers violates their fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Rejection of their applications on the ground of non-maintenance of labour registers and non-commencement of business operations cannot be sustained. Rejection of their applications is only due to the undue influence and external political pressure, urged the petitioners. 8. The 4th respondent-Chairman, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 4th respondent submitted that the area in which the establishment situates is a Scheme operationalised area as per the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. The 5th respondent did not maintain records and registers as required. Therefore, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners. 9. The 4th respondent stated that the 5th respondent-employer had filed OS No.647/2024 in the 1st Additional Munsiff's Court. The 5th respondent obtained an interim injunction against the pool workers, in the suit. The registered pool workers filed CMA.65/2024 in the District Court, Ernakulam against the interim injunction. The District Court has allowed the appeal. The 5th respondent thereafter filed OP(C) No.2540/2024 against the order of the District Court in CMA.65/2024. 10. The 4th respondent further submitted that there are headload workers in the pool who have been given special training in handling fragile and sophisticated articles. Trained and registered pool workers are engaged in the Medical Colleges, Hospitals and other medical institutions for loading and unloading of medicines. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is without any merit. 11. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioners. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioners were appointed as headload workers based on their qualifications and suitability. The petitioners have undergone regular comprehensive training in handling sophisticated and fragile pharmaceutical products. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is without any merit. 11. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit supporting the petitioners. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioners were appointed as headload workers based on their qualifications and suitability. The petitioners have undergone regular comprehensive training in handling sophisticated and fragile pharmaceutical products. The 5th respondent obtained GST registration. The Assistant Drug Controller has certified the necessity of trained staff for handling medicines. The decision of the District Labour Officer contained in Ext.P15 was taken without considering the entirety of the situation. The appeal has been rejected mechanically. 12. The additional 6th respondent, who is the pool leader representing the headload workers in pool No.27, resisted the writ petition. The additional 6th respondent submitted that the employer of the establishment does not have registered headload workers attached to his establishment. In the light of the Full Bench decision in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police [ 1998 (2) KLT 732 ], the petitioners cannot do loading and unloading work in the establishment without registration. 13. The additional 6th respondent stated that the petitioners are not bona fide workers. The 1st petitioner is cousin brother of one lawyer advising the 5th respondent-employer. The 1st petitioner owns several vehicles including pick up vans, container lorries, etc. The 2nd petitioner is the elder brother of the 5th respondent-Managing Partner. The 3rd petitioner is the Manager of a Firm owning godown and engaged in distribution of products. 14. The certificate obtained by the 5th respondent under the Shops and Commercial Establishment Act would show that there are 53 employees out of which 8 persons are migrant workers. The petitioners are seeking 26A registration in order to enable the 5th respondent to carry out loading and unloading work engaging migrant workers. The certificates produced by the 5th respondent and the petitioners are fake. The products handled by the establishment of the 5th respondent are not fragile in nature as claimed. 15. When the registering authority inspected the establishment on 27.04.2024, it was found that the establishment has not started functioning. Statutory registers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act were not maintained by the 5th respondent. Therefore, the applications of the petitioners were rightly rejected by the registering authority. The writ petition has been filed without any bona fide and it is only to be dismissed. 16. Statutory registers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act were not maintained by the 5th respondent. Therefore, the applications of the petitioners were rightly rejected by the registering authority. The writ petition has been filed without any bona fide and it is only to be dismissed. 16. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 4th respondent and respective learned counsel appearing for 5th and additional 6th respondents. 17. The applications submitted by the petitioners for registration of headload workers under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 stand rejected as per Ext.P10 order dated 29.04.2024 of the 2nd respondent-registering authority. The applications have been rejected for the reason that the establishment has not started functioning so far and that the 5th respondent has not maintained statutory registers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978. 18. The question is whether applications can be submitted for registration as attached headload workers even before the establishment to which they are to work has started functioning. Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules, 1981 provides that 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. As per Rule 26A(2), on receipt of such application, the registering authority shall issue notice in Form-X to the employers. The Rule does not expressly or impliedly prohibit submission of applications for registration under Rule 26A before an establishment starts functioning. 19. The area where the 5th respondent has started his establishment is a Scheme operationalised area under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983. Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, 1983 provides that 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. 20. When a new establishment starts functioning, if the owner of the establishment wants to engage attached headload workers from day one, he can engage only attached workers having Rule 26A registration. 20. When a new establishment starts functioning, if the owner of the establishment wants to engage attached headload workers from day one, he can engage only attached workers having Rule 26A registration. Therefore, in order not to violate the prohibition under Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, 1983, headload workers proposed to be engaged may have to apply for registration even before the establishment starts commercial functioning. The employers cannot be forced to engage pool workers by delaying registration of attached workers. Because, in our constitutional scheme, an employer can aspire to engage attached workers of his choice, having commitment and loyalty to the establishment. 21. A Division Bench of this Court has held in the judgment in Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board v. Nishad M.B. and others [ 2022 (5) KLT 188 ] that 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. This Court held that at the time of his employment or engagement, an attached worker 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. 22. In the case of the petitioners, the petitioners have secured employment as headload workers which is evident from Exts.P1 to P3 appointment orders issued on 01.03.2024. As the petitioners have secured employment as headload workers, they are entitled to apply for registration as headload workers. Rejection of their application for registration on the ground that the establishment did not start functioning when the applications for registrations were submitted, cannot be legally justified. 23. If applications for registration of headload workers are received after infrastructure for the establishment is ready but before commercial operation of the establishment is not started, the registering authority can nevertheless visit the establishment, inspect the premises, take statements of the employer and others and assess the requirement of registered headload workers attached to the establishment. 23. If applications for registration of headload workers are received after infrastructure for the establishment is ready but before commercial operation of the establishment is not started, the registering authority can nevertheless visit the establishment, inspect the premises, take statements of the employer and others and assess the requirement of registered headload workers attached to the establishment. If the registering authority is convinced that the establishment would require service of headload workers, then in spite of the fact that commercial operations are not started, the registering authority can issue identity cards so that the attached headload workers start their work from the day of start of commercial operation with their names registered as headload workers under Rule 26A. 24. If the registering authority is not in a position to assess the requirement of headload workers in a newly started establishment before commercial operations are started, then the registering authority can wait for a reasonable time so that commercial operations are started and the requirement is verified and assessed. The registering authority will, however, not be justified in rejecting the applications for registration as attached headload workers for the sole reason that commercial operations are not started. 25. If after submission of applications for registration, commercial operation of the establishment is not started within a reasonable time and the registering authority is not in a position to assess the requirement of registration without commercial operations being started, then the registering authority can return the applications for registration requiring the applicants to resubmit the applications as and when commercial operations are started. Rejection of the applications for registration on that ground, however, cannot be legally justified. 26. The further reason for declining application for registration is that the employer has not maintained requisite registers under the Kerala Headload Workers Act and the Rules. Maintenance of such registers is necessary only when commercial operations of the establishment are started. In the case of the 5th respondent, the registering authority visited the establishment on 27.04.2024 and found that requisite registers are not maintained even before the establishment started commercial functioning after obtaining GST registration. The registering authority committed an error in declining registration to the attached headload workers for the reason that statutory registers are not maintained even before the establishment started commercial operations. The registering authority committed an error in declining registration to the attached headload workers for the reason that statutory registers are not maintained even before the establishment started commercial operations. If after starting commercial operations, the inspecting officers of the Labour Department find that requisite registers are not maintained the authorities have power to initiate legal proceedings against the employer under Section 27(2) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. For all the afore reasons, I find that Exts.P10 and P15 orders cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Exts.P10 and P15 are set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Exts.P7 to P9 applications submitted by the petitioner, if necessary after making further inspection of the establishment, and take decision in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of two months.