JUDGMENT : Fostering a healthy relationship between labour and entrepreneurship is essential for creating a resilient and dynamic economy. The rising number of disputes between entrepreneurs and labour in our State reflects underlying tensions, primarily related to wage and compensation issues, as well as working conditions. Addressing these root causes is crucial for a balanced approach. Collaborative efforts from businesses, the Headload Workers Welfare Board, labor unions, and the Government are essential to create a conducive atmosphere, where disputes are effectively managed. The collective effort of labour and entrepreneurs, supported by effective government policies, will pave the way for it becoming a less litigious area. 2. Now to the essential facts: 3. The petitioner says that she is engaged in the wholesale business of consumer products under a valid GST registration. She says that she has taken godowns for the purpose of storing her commercial products and has invested large amounts of money for such purpose. She submits that she is agreeable to have the loading and unloading works done by the members of respondents 5 and 6 Unions, at the rate fixed by the statutory Authority; but that they are making usurious demands of double the said rate and are thus obstructing the work. She says that she had been, therefore, left without any other option, but to approach the fourth respondent -Station House Officer for protection, but that no action has been taken thereon until now; thus constraining her to approach this Court through this writ petition. 4. In response to the afore submissions of Smt.Suja Padnaban Pillai – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Thomas Abraham – learned standing counsel for the third respondent – Board, submitted that a statement has been filed by him, wherein, it has been explained that the rate in force for loading and unloading a bag weighing 31 kg to 50 kg is Rs.17.96. He added that the workers attached to the statutory pool under the Kerala Headload Workers Act are obligated to work on this rate and that they are doing so, without any complaint having been received by his client until now. He argued that, therefore, this writ petition is unnecessary. 5. I notice from the file that service to respondents 5 and 6 have been validly completed. He argued that, therefore, this writ petition is unnecessary. 5. I notice from the file that service to respondents 5 and 6 have been validly completed. However, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 6. Smt.Rekha C.Nair -learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the assertions of the petitioner do not appear to be fully correct because, the workers attached to the statutory pool maintained by the Board cannot, and normally will not, seek any amount which is in excess of the fixed rates. She submitted that since the petitioner herself admits that she is willing to pay such rates, there is no controversy; and hence that the fourth respondent – Station House Officer will afford her and her employees, effective and adequate protection. She, however, submitted that this may not be allowed to be used by the petitioner to deny work to the members of the statutory pool, provided they work at the rates fixed by the Board. 7. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is indubitable that no one, including the members of respondents 5 and 6, can seek any amount in excess of the wages stipulated by the Board. This is a statutory obligation cast upon them; and therefore, if they violate it and seek any further, it becomes contrary to the statutory scheme. 8. Since Sri.Thomas Abraham affirms that the rate fixed as of now is Rs.17.96 for a bag weighing 31 kg to 50 kg, obviously, the members of respondents 5 and 6 have to abide by the same; and should there be any dispute regarding this, they must invoke the jurisdiction of the Board, under Section 21(4) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act. 9. In such perspective, I allow this writ petition and direct the fourth respondent to ensure that the lives of the petitioner and her employees, as also her business, are adequately and sufficiently protected from any threat, intimidation or act of violation of law from any person, including the members of respondents 5 and 6 and that law and order is always maintained without any breach of peace. 10. 10. As far as respondents 5 and 6 are concerned, I direct them and their members to act as per law and to abide by the wage structure fixed by the Board through the statutory process, though their liberty to challenge the same, or to seek any further relief before it, is fully left open, as also their contentions in that regard. 11. Before parting, I must record that cases where entrepreneurs are forced to come to this Court are now increasing. It is unfortunate because, it is for the Board to ensure that there is a healthy labour scenario in Kerala, for which they must also take steps to edify the workers registered by them, of the legal avenues that are available to them, rather than make physical obstructions and such other. Of course, this is not to mean that respondents 5 and 6 in this case have done so, but this Court deems it necessary to suggest to the Board that it is now time for them to intervene and ensure that disputes, as projected in this case, leading to unnecessary skirmishes and other violations of law, are totally avoided and that a confidence is created that Kerala has a healthy investor culture. This, of course, is only a suggestion because, this Court cannot command the Board to act in a particular manner, but can only commend. I hereby do so.