Judgment :- By proceedings dated 20.7.2002, the second respondent proposed to cancel the settlement entered into between the employees of the second respondent/Society and the Board of Management of the second respondent/Society on 10.8.1999 under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 20.7.2002 of the second respondent, the petitioner has preferred the above writ petition for issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 20.7.2002 issued by the second respondent, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents and their men, agents and subordinates from interfering with the implementation of settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 10.8.1999 entered into between the petitioner and the Board of Management of the 2nd respondent Society and his service conditions, contending that the respondents are not competent authority either to interfere with the right of the employees and the Board of Management to enter into the settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act or to cancel the same, as the said settlement entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is valid and acted upon. 2. It is not in dispute that the second respondent/Society is registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 enables every Co-operative Society to frame special bye-laws with the approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, prescribing the conditions of service of paid officers and servants of Societies on the following matters: i.Cadre strength and classification of various categories of posts and the qualifications required thereof for each such posts. ii.The method of recruitment for each such posts. iii.The scale of pay and allowances for each such posts. iv.Conditions of probation for each such posts. v.Duties and responsibilities for each such posts. vi.Leave of various kinds admissible and, the conditions thereto for each such posts. vii.The penalties that may be imposed upon, the procedure for taking disciplinary action and inflicting various kinds of punishments on an employee holding each such post and the authority competent to entertain and dispose of appeal made against an order of punishment imposed by the competent authority on a disciplinary proceedings. vii.The penalties that may be imposed upon, the procedure for taking disciplinary action and inflicting various kinds of punishments on an employee holding each such post and the authority competent to entertain and dispose of appeal made against an order of punishment imposed by the competent authority on a disciplinary proceedings. viii.Conditions relating to acquisition and disposal of movable and immovable property: Provided that a minimum period of three years of satisfactory service shall be prescribed for eligibility for promotion from one category to the immediate next higher category of post: Provided further that the Co-operative Training at the appropriate level may be prescribed as a necessary qualification for specific categories of non-technical posts. 3. Admittedly, as on date, no such special bye-law has been framed by the second respondent/Society or approved by the first respondent. Taking advantage of the situation, it appears the employees of the second respondent and the Board of Management of the second respondent/Society have entered into a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but the same has been not been approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and the same is sought to be cancelled by the impugned proceedings. 4. Appreciating this factual position, the Division Bench of this Court in JUSTINE.L. Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 held as follows: "?. iii. in societies, where the cadre strength has not been fixed, direct them to adopt the special bye-law in conformity with sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.212, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,d ated 4.7.1995; iv. iii. in societies, where the cadre strength has not been fixed, direct them to adopt the special bye-law in conformity with sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.212, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,d ated 4.7.1995; iv. direct the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to issue a circular within a week from today calling upon all the cooperative societies in the State of Tamil Nadu to comply with the directions in clause (iii) supra; v. direct that within two months of the approval of the special bye-laws under sub-Rule (1) of Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, the respective Deputy Registrars of Cooperative Societies having jurisdiction over the cooperative societies in their Divisions, shall enquire, by issuing notice to the entire staff recruited from 9.7.1980 to 11.3.2001, and decide as to whether the said recruitment is in conformity with the special bye-laws approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and terminate the services of such staff members, whose appointments are in contravention of the special bye laws so approved by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies; it is made clear that while considering the validity or otherwise of the appointment of the staff cooperative societies, the requirement of notifying the vacancies to employment exchange shall not be taken cognizance of." 5. It is settled law in law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, such act must be done in that manner prescribed under the statute, but not otherwise, vide TAYLOR Vs. TAYLOR reported in 1875 Ch D 426: 45 LJCh 373; LORD ROCHE IN NAZIR AHMAD Vs. KING EMPEROR reported in 1936 (63) IA, RAO SHIV BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1961 SC 1527 ; STATE OF U.P. Vs. SINGAHARA SINGH reported in AIR 1964 SC 358 ; and BABU VERGHESE Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA reported in 1999 (II) CTC 722. 6. In the instant case, admittedly, no cadre strength has been fixed by the second respondent/Society. Therefore, in the absence of any such cadre strength, the employees are neither entitled to work out their rights under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 or to stake their claim under the settlement entered under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with respect to their conditions of service. 7. Therefore, in the absence of any such cadre strength, the employees are neither entitled to work out their rights under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981 or to stake their claim under the settlement entered under Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with respect to their conditions of service. 7. If that be so, the claim of the petitioner for fixation of pay and for promotion, which forms a part and parcel of the conditions of the employees of the cooperative societies, based on the settlement entered under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not tenable. 8. Therefore, finding no good and sufficient reasons to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 20.7.2002 of the second respondent/Society, this writ petition is dismissed, with a direction to the respondents to comply with the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in JUSTINE.L. Vs. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES reported in 2002 (4) CTC 385 . In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with above observation. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 53366 of 2002 is also dismissed.