JUDGMENT : GOPINATH P., J. 1. The petitioner is a partnership firm stated to be engaged in the business of carrying and forwarding, providing warehousing facilities and related activities. According to the petitioner, in connection with this business, it has constructed warehouses in different places in and around Ernakulam District. It is also taken warehouses on lease. According to the petitioner, it had entered into an agreement dated 12.06.2025 with the owners of the land and building in Vazhakulam Village for the purposes of storage of products of M/s. Hindustan Coca- Cola Beverages Private Ltd., which includes loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, sorting, and cleaning, etc. A copy of the agreement between the petitioner and M/s. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Ltd. is placed on record as Ext. P2. According to the petitioner, it has obtained all necessary licenses and permissions from the statutory authorities in connection with its business. It is the case of the petitioner that it has its own registered headload workers. The names of 24 permanent workers of the petitioner to whom identity cards have been issued under Rule 26A of the Headload Workers Rules , 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules), have been placed on record as Exts. P6 to P29. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 18.06.2025, when certain materials were brought to the warehouse in order to provide partitioning and creation of office space, a group of individuals caused obstruction, stating that they are headload workers and are entitled to do all the loading and unloading work in the area. According to the petitioner, it submitted a complaint before the local police. It is stated that after completion of the work inside the warehouse, the business operations started and on 25.6.2025, respondents 4 to 6, together with their men, illegally entered the warehouse premises and physically prevented loading and unloading activities. It is stated that respondents 4 to 6 and their men openly declared that the petitioner will not be permitted to carry on with their activities without providing work to the loading and unloading workers owing allegiance to respondents 4 to 6, prompting the petitioner to again petition the local police. It is contended that, in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6. It is contended that, in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 4 to 6. It is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to carry on loading and unloading work through the workers whose names are mentioned in Exts. P6 to P29. It is submitted that even according to the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner firm started operating in Vazhakulam only in July 2025. It is submitted that the copies of the cards allegedly issued to the workers of the petitioner under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules indicate that they were all issued earlier than the date on which the petitioner firm started functioning at Vazhakulam. It is stated that 19 of the 26A cards relied on by the petitioner have been issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, who has no lawful jurisdiction to issue the same. It is submitted that four out of the 26A cards produced by the petitioner have been issued to a different establishment functioning in a completely different address. It is submitted that Ext. R4(b), a document which is information obtained by one of the pool workers in the area in question, indicates that there are no records in the office of the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, regarding 26A cards allegedly issued to the employees of the petitioner firm. It is submitted that Ext. R4(b) also indicates that the workers to whom 26A cards have been issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, are not entitled to work outside the stipulated area, that is, the area where the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, has jurisdiction. It is submitted that a petition for police protection cannot be entertained in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Ventures R.K. v. District Superintendent of Police, Ernakulam (Rural), Aluva, and others , 2024 KHC 1457, which was followed by the Division Bench in Ext. R4(c) judgment in Goline Networks Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 KHC OnLine 10818 . R4(c) judgment in Goline Networks Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others, 2025 KHC OnLine 10818 . It is submitted that since several issues are involved, including the right of the petitioner to utilise the services of workers who have been issued with cards under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules from Angamaly, and since the issue involves adjudication of factual disputes, the petitioner must be required to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Kerala Headload Workers Act , 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Act). It is submitted that this court had followed the judgments of the Division Bench referred to above in its judgment dated 31.10.2025 in W.P.(C)No.36815/2025 when a similar issue arose for adjudication. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 7 th respondent, namely, Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Fund Board, where again it is contended that 26A cards issued by the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, cannot be pressed into service for using the workers to whom such cards have been issued for loading and unloading work in Vazhakulam, which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly. It is also reiterated that the petitioner firm was functioning at Vazhakulam only from 2025 onward, and it is a mystery as to how the petitioner firm could get 26A cards issued to such a large number of workers even before it started functioning. 4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner wherein it is inter alia contended that the petitioner firm has been engaged in carrying on business in the same line for a large number of years and therefore, it had engaged workers of its own for loading and unloading work and had obtained registration in terms of Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules for such workers. It is stated that when the petitioner firm was conducting its business at a warehouse in Karumaloor Grama Panchayat, certain persons claiming to be members of the headload workers union had obstructed the work of the petitioner, and the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.22127/2024 before this court, and this court by Ext.P36 judgment had granted police protection. It is stated that the petitioner had to move to Vazhakulam only to provide a larger area and better facilities to M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Ltd., and as per their request. It is stated that the petitioner had to move to Vazhakulam only to provide a larger area and better facilities to M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Ltd., and as per their request. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the question as to whether the workers granted registration in one area could work under the same employer in another area is no longer res integra. It is submitted that the judgments in Eastern Condiments (P) Ltd. v. Sub Inspector of Police, 2012 (3) KLT 58 , Southern Agencies v. Sub Inspector of Police, Thripunithura and others, 2018 (4) KLT 862 and A One Furniture and others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Aroor and others, 2018 (2) KLT 731 , would establish that the attached workers of the petitioner issued with cards under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules while working in a particular area could work in any other area for the petitioner. It is also submitted that the question as to whether the petitioner had to first invoke the adjudicatory mechanism under Section 21 of the 1978 Act was specifically considered by a Full Bench of this court in Raghavan v. Superintendent of Police, 1998 (2) KLT 732. It is submitted that the said decision was never brought to the notice of the Division Bench while the Division Bench decided Ventures R.K. (supra) and Goline Networks Private Limited (supra). It is submitted that in Ext.R4(d) judgment, this court only followed the Division Bench judgments, which did not consider the Full Bench of this court in Raghavan (supra). It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 has reiterated the contentions taken in the counter affidavit and has attempted to establish that the Division Bench in Ventures R.K. (supra) and Goline Networks Private Limited (supra) has not taken a view contrary to the view taken by the Full Bench of this court in Raghavan (supra). The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 has reiterated the contentions taken in the counter affidavit and has attempted to establish that the Division Bench in Ventures R.K. (supra) and Goline Networks Private Limited (supra) has not taken a view contrary to the view taken by the Full Bench of this court in Raghavan (supra). It is submitted that the Division Bench judgments in Ventures R.K. (supra) and Goline Networks Private Limited (supra) only require that, before applying to this court for a writ directing the provision of police protection, the petitioner had to activate the dispute resolution mechanism in the 1978 Act. It is submitted that in the light of the fact that there are several factual disputes, including the right of the workers of the petitioner who have allegedly been issued with registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules to work at Vazhakulam, the petitioner should have invoked the dispute resolution mechanism before rushing to this court seeking an order for police protection. It is submitted that even if it is conceded that the workers registered in one area under the petitioner could work in another area, it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to have informed the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the 1978 Act. It is submitted that the petitioners have not made out any strong case for the grant of an order directing the official respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner. It is also suggested by the learned Standing Counsel for the 7 th Respondent in the course of his oral submissions that the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, who issued the 26A cards in question, is presently under suspension and that a thorough inquiry is necessary into the validity of the 26A cards issued by that particular officer. 6. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 6. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. While it is true that in Ventures R.K. (supra) Goline Networks Private Limited (supra), a Division Bench of this court took the view that it would only be appropriate that where disputes of a nature similar to the one projected in this writ petition arise, the matter is to be first adjudicated by the statutory authorities under the 1978 Act, in Raghavan (supra), a Full Bench of this Court held as follows:- “22. The Act and the Rules provide for a machinery for settlement of disputes between the employer and the worker. In the normal course, the dispute between the employer and the headload workers employed by him are to be settled in accordance with the machinery thus provided under the Statute just like in the case of any other labour dispute being settled in accordance with the provisions contained under the relevant statutes. Such disputes may include an issue whether a particular worker is a headload worker at all. But the fact that there is a machinery provided under the Act to settle the disputes between the parties cannot stand in the way of the employer seeking police protection when there is a law and order problem. When such an employer approaches this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking protection of person and property of the employer as well as willing workers, this Court will be justified in granting direction to the police to give protection, if circumstances so warrant. One such consideration can be irreparable injury that would be suffered by the employer and / or the willing workers. There may be other circumstances also which would justify grant of such direction in the facts of particular case. Therefore, according to us, the extreme view taken by a Bench in ILR 1997 (1) Kerala 549 supra that under no circumstances, if the dispute is one arising under the Headload Workers Act , order for police protection can be granted, cannot be sustained. Therefore, according to us, the extreme view taken by a Bench in ILR 1997 (1) Kerala 549 supra that under no circumstances, if the dispute is one arising under the Headload Workers Act , order for police protection can be granted, cannot be sustained. To that extent, ILR 1997 (1) Kerala 549 stands overruled.” That apart, it is clear from the decisions of this Court in Eastern Condiments (supra), Southern Agencies (supra), and A One Furniture (supra) that even if workers granted registration under a particular area are shifted to another area owing to the shifting of the business of the employer under whom they are engaged, such shifting could not deprive them of the benefits of holding registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules provided they continue to work under the same employer and engage themselves in loading and unloading work. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I am prima facie convinced that the petitioner can carry on with its business without having to engage loading and unloading workers owing allegiance to respondents 4 to 6, as it has its own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 and the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent that the workers of the petitioner can work only within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Officer, Angamaly, cannot be accepted in the light of the law laid down by the Division Bench Judgments in Eastern Condiments (supra), Southern Agencies (supra), and A One Furniture (supra). Respondents 4 to 6 have no right to obstruct the petitioner from carrying out its work using its own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules. Therefore, I am inclined to allow this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The 3 rd respondent is directed to ensure that the work of the petitioner is not affected in any manner by respondents 4 to 6 or their men and that the petitioner is permitted to carry on with loading and unloading work using its own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules. The 3 rd respondent is directed to ensure that the work of the petitioner is not affected in any manner by respondents 4 to 6 or their men and that the petitioner is permitted to carry on with loading and unloading work using its own workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules. It is made clear that the fact that the workers of the petitioner had obtained registration from an authority not having jurisdiction over Vazhakulam will not be treated as a ground to deny the petitioner the right to load and unload goods using such workers. It is further made clear that if the petitioner requires the services of any additional workers other than for loading and unloading work, other than workers holding valid registration under Rule 26A of the 1981 Rules, such work shall be allotted to headload workers of the pool in the area. It is also made clear that this judgment will not prevent Respondents 4 to 6 and/or the 7 th respondent from challenging the validity of the cards issued to the workers of the petitioner in accordance with the law. The writ petition will stand ordered accordingly