JUDGMENT : Mohan, J.—On 9th April, 1973, a notice u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was issued by the writ petitioner management which is to the following effect : ANNEXURE Notice u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, dated 9th April, 1973. Change Proposed; Revision of work-loads and wages for the workers in bundling department shown below : Explanation : The present work-loads in the building department has been in force, since the last 10 to 12 years, whereas the work-loads in all other departments of mills like preparatory, spinning, reeling, etc., have been revised to a large extent. 2. It is absolutely essential that rationalisation is carried out, in the above department, especially when the cost of production has gone very high on account of the high dearness allowance and increased cost of store materials, power, etc. 3. Therefore, it is the intention of the management, to enforce the workload and wages, as mentioned in the statement attached herewith. This proposal is made on the basis of the existing work-loads and wages at the Lakshmi Mills Company Limited, Kovilpatti. 4. The revised work-loads and wages will be brought into effect from 9th May, 1973 : For Weigher, Presser & Knotter (Basic wages) (including first wage-board basic wages & extra allowances) Rs. 64-48. Second wage board (Basic Wage & D.A.) as per agreement Fixed Dearness Allowance Rs. 45-00. Variable Dearness Allowance : @ 26 paise per point on Madras Cost of Living Index above 340 points. As it could be seen it would come into effect from 9th May, 1973. When it was agitated before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that there has been a deduction with regard to wages to which the respondents were entitled to, the Commissioner under the impugned order came to the conclusion that the notice u/s 9A (extracted above) is in order as it was issued u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Rule 57. He further held that the matters covered under the notice constituted a fresh contract of service. However, by curious reasoning be went on to hold as follows : As per Ext. R3 the work-load and wages were revised. However, there is no clause in Ext. R3 authorising the opposite party to deduct wages for giving less production. He further held that the matters covered under the notice constituted a fresh contract of service. However, by curious reasoning be went on to hold as follows : As per Ext. R3 the work-load and wages were revised. However, there is no clause in Ext. R3 authorising the opposite party to deduct wages for giving less production. In such case any deduction from wages must come under the purview of Sections 7 to 13 of the Payment of Wages Act. The deduction from wages for giving lesser production does not come under any of the above sections. Hence the deductions from the wages of the applicants are not authorised deductions. On this finding, he directed the writ petitioner to pay the "deductions". It is to quash this order, the present writ petition has been preferred, 2. The management in attacking the validity of the order rightly contends that if the reasoning Of the Commissioner under the impugned order is accepted the very basis of fixing the workload under Ext. R3 falls to the ground. Moreover, having found that Ext. R3 held the field, the Commissioner erred in holding that they were deductions. The learned Counsel for the workmen would, however, contend that they were turning out the work-load as was prevailing before revision under Ext. R3 and if any amount less than to which they were entitled was paid it would constitute deduction ". 3. On a careful consideration of the above arguments, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent. The deduction itself postulates certain entitlements on behalf of the workmen, whereon the contrary Ext. R3 prescribed a particular work-load which work-load is the basis for the award of wages, for turning out the lesser work-load, which is described under Ext. R3 could not and would not constitute any deduction. As otherwise the very basis for fixing the work load would be defeated. Nor again is it necessary to state that for giving less production there would be deduction of wages because the wages are related to the production as would be obvious from Ext. R3. Therefore, I hold the impugned order is liable to be set aside since it proceeds upon an erroneous basis that Ext. R3 should state that for giving less production there will be corresponding decrease in wages. Accordingly, it is quashed. R3. Therefore, I hold the impugned order is liable to be set aside since it proceeds upon an erroneous basis that Ext. R3 should state that for giving less production there will be corresponding decrease in wages. Accordingly, it is quashed. However, I make it clear that neither by the impugned order nor by my order herein, the workmen are in any way disabled from agitating the validity and the binding nature of Ext. R3 in such separate proceedings as they may choose to agitate. 4. These writ petitions are allowed. No costs.