Judgment :- Heard Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union and Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, namely, Tamil Nadu State Primary Co-operative Bank All Employees Union, challenges the proceedings of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 28.2.2002, wherein the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has directed all the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks not to accord approval for enhanced 2% dearness allowance to the employees of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks on par with the Government servants with effect from 1.7.2001 based on G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 4.6.1999, communicated by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his letter dated 7.6.1999. By the impugned proceedings, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has also directed the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies to issue suitable instructions to the Special Officers of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks not to enter into any settlement either under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act and not to resort any new recruitment, regularisation of the temporary staff, wage revision, sanction of dearness allowance or any other allowances until further instructions are issued. 3. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.6.1999 has been challenged in Writ Petition Nos.13238 of 1999 etc. batch and a Division Bench of this Court has also stayed the said G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.6.1999 in W.P.M.P.Nos.18990 of 1999 in Writ Petition Nos.13238 of 1999 etc. batch. 4. It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.6.1999 has been challenged in Writ Petition Nos.13238 of 1999 etc. batch and a Division Bench of this Court has also stayed the said G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department, dated 4.6.1999 in W.P.M.P.Nos.18990 of 1999 in Writ Petition Nos.13238 of 1999 etc. batch. 4. Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the respondents, brought the following facts to my consideration and contends that; (i)the petitioner-Union is not entitled to file the above writ petition challenging the proceedings of the second respondent dated 28.2.2002 because the petitioner-Union consists of the employees who are working in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks through out Tamil Nadu and they are employed by different Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks at different point of time and under different settlement either under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, as the case may be and therefore, the benefit of such settlements could be agitated only by the concerned employees against the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, but not generally; (ii) Since the appointment of most of the employees in the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank by themselves is contrary to the Rules made under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act as well as to the by-laws of the respective Co-operative Bank, their appointment, much less the regularisation of the appointment are held to be illegal in view of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in L.Justin and another vs. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 ; (iii)In the absence of any specific detail with regard to the members of the petitioner-Union, who claim to be the employees of different Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks, the petitioner-Union is not entitled to maintain the above writ petition; and (iv) Even on merits, since the regularisation of appointment of members of the petitioner-Union, who are said to be employed by the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank pursuant to the settlement made under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, itself is liable to be set aside, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is entitled to take appropriate action on the members of the petitioner-Union in the light of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Justin's case (cited supra). If that be so, the claim of the petitioner-Union for enhanced 2% dearness allowance is liable to be rejected at the outset. 5. I have given a careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 6.1 It is not in dispute that G.O.Ms.No.131, Co-operation, Food & Consumer Protection Department dated 4.6.1999, has been now stayed by this Court in W.P.M.P.Nos.18990 of 1999 in W.P.Nos.23099 of 1999 etc. Batch. Therefore, the petitioner-Union is not entitled to seek any relief contrary to the order of stay made in W.P.M.P.Nos.18990/99 in W.P.Nos.23099/99 etc. Batch. 6.2 That apart, it is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Union are employed by different Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks in Tamil Nadu, which are governed by different settlements either under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If that be so, it may not be proper for this Court to permit the petitioner-Union to file the above writ petition on behalf of all the employees, who are working under different Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks and covered under different settlements entered under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, even without impleading the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. 6.3 In any event, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, since the claim of the petitioner-Union itself is based on the alleged settlements said to have been entered by the petitioner-Union and the respective Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank either under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the members of the petitioner-Union had been regularised only pursuant to such settlements. Since a Division Bench of this Court has now held in Justin's case (cited supra) that the appointment of such of those employees as well as the regularisation of such appointments pursuant to the settlements entered under Section 18(1) or 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act are held to be illegal, if they were not appointed through the Employment Exchange, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is entitled to take appropriate action against the members of the petitioner-Union with respect to the very appointment or the regularisation of the same in a manner known to law. 6.4 If that be so, the members of the petitioner-Union are not entitled to claim the enhanced 2% dearness allowance based on settlements entered under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the I.D. Act. 7. 6.4 If that be so, the members of the petitioner-Union are not entitled to claim the enhanced 2% dearness allowance based on settlements entered under Section 18(1) and 12(3) of the I.D. Act. 7. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and therefore, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.51039, 51040 and 51041 of 2002 are also dismissed.