ORDER Abdul Hadi, J. 1. This revision petition is against the concurrent order dated 30.3.1989 in C.M.A. No. 176 of 1986 on the file of the District Judge, Uthagamandalam, dismissing the appeal preferred by the management, Nelliyalam Tea Division, Gudalur Taluk (TANTEA) against the three respondents who are the appellant's employees. The respondents filled a petition before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act. 1936, against the appellant, claiming a sum of Rs. 4,237.74 on the ground that the said amount has been deducted from their wages for the months of January to August, 1985. The case of the respondents is that though they were ordinary workers under the appellant, they were asked to work as night watchmen during the abovesaid period and that since they had so worked, they are entitled to 11/2 times the wages of an ordinary worker. 2. The main defence of the appellant was that the matter could not be agitated under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act on the ground that there was no "deduction from the wages" within the meaning of that term in that Section. However, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the petition before him and directed the appellant to pay the amount. In the subsequent appeal filed before the District Judge also, the appellant herein failed and hence this revision is filed. 3. Before me also, it was urged that the case is not one of "deduction of wages" and if at all only an industrial dispute could be raised and the relief provided under Section 15(2) of the Act cannot be invoked. 4. I do think that the contention of the revision petitioner is sustainable, it has been found by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore as follows: The applicants have been working as ordinary workers and have been asked to work as night watchman. This is not denied by the Opposite Party. It is also not denied by the Opposite Party that the night watchman, Georgas are paid 11/2 times: The learned District Judge also finds as follows: Further the fact admitted is that from January, 1985 to August, 1985 they were attending to the working of a night watchman or goorkas as the case may be.... It is further clear that while an ordinary worker is paid Rs. It is further clear that while an ordinary worker is paid Rs. 1/- the person who is doing the work of the Watchman is entitled to and is paid 11/2 time the wages of an ordinary worker. 5. So, it is clear that the contract of employment as a Night Watchman for the abovesaid period is admitted. Further the fact that such a Watchman is entitled to 11/2times the wages of an ordinary worker is not denied. The Supreme Court has held in Shri Ambica Mills Co. v. S.B. Bhatt as follows: ...If a contract of employment is admitted and there is a dispute about the construction of its terms, that obviously falls within Section 15 of the Act. It further held that question incidental to claims arising out of deductions made in payment of wages can be decided under Section 15 of the above said Act. Therefore, the present case would squarely come under Section 15(2) of the said Act. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Khemsingh Ramsing (1986)I. L.L.J. 390 (Guj.) and contended that as per that decision, the issue could be decided only by way of raising an "industrial dispute", but, that decision arose not under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, but under Section 33(C)2 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Counsel also relied on the decision reported in A.V.D. Costs v. B.C. Patel. But that decision only held that under Section 15 of the abovesaid Act, there is no jurisdiction to decide the question of potential wages. But the present case is not one such. The facts in A.V.D. Costs v. P.C. Patel are entirely different. 6. In the circumstances, in view of the above referred to Supreme Court decision in Shri Ambica Mills Co. v. S.B. Bhatt A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 970.1 hold that there is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned orders and, therefore, this Revision Petition is hereby dismissed.