ORDER : A.K. Rajan, J.—Though notice has been served, nobody appeared on the side of the third respondent. Name of the third respondent has been printed in the case (sic) list. Even today also, there is no appearance on the side of the third respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed for issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the third respondent from interfering with the service conditions mentioned in their Section 9-A notice of the I.D. Act till a proper adjudication by a Tribunal is over or by a proper settlement. 3. A settlement was entered into between the employees and the management u/s 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act on May 8, 1989 and on March 14, 1991. While so, by an order, dated September 22, 1997, in accordance with Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the management issued a notice stating that it intended to effect the changes specified in the annexure, with effect from October 14, 1997 in the conditions of service applicable to workmen in respect of the matters specified in the Fourth Schedule to the said Act. 4. The present writ petition is filed to, forbear the respondents from interfering with the service conditions on the ground that it is not permissible to change the service conditions unilaterally since the Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act reads as follows: "No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any of the workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall effect such change-- (a) without giving to the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature in the change proposed to be effected, (b) within twenty one days of giving such notice:" Fourth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act contends the following: "Conditions of service for change of which notice is to be given. (i) Wages, including the period and mode of payment. (ii)......... (iii) Compensatory and other allowances; (iv) to (vii)............ (viii) Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage;" 5. Therefore, the proposed changes as found in annexure falls with the categories mentioned in Fourth Schedule. This Court by an order, dated December 22, 2000 reported in Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union Vs. (ii)......... (iii) Compensatory and other allowances; (iv) to (vii)............ (viii) Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage;" 5. Therefore, the proposed changes as found in annexure falls with the categories mentioned in Fourth Schedule. This Court by an order, dated December 22, 2000 reported in Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation and Another, (2001) 2 LLJ 192 following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur and Others, AIR 1980 SC 2181 : "7..........Therefore, the statement of law of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the implication of notice being issued u/s 9-A and the consequence thereof is clear to the effect that the initiation of such a move is only for an ultimate result in the resolution of the said issue culminating in the form of an industrial dispute to ultimately get resolved." 6. In view of the abovesaid judgment of the Supreme Court which is followed by this Court, unless it is raised in a form of industrial dispute and get resolved before the appropriate forum, the service conditions cannot be changed. 7. In those circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed or. Hence, this petition is allowed.