Judgment :- Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents. 2. Petitions filed praying to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the second respondent's proceedings No.110691/2002/PACB dated 28.2.2002, quash the same and consequently forbear the respondents from interfering with the concluded settlements arrived at under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, between the petitioners' Association and the managements by the Elected Board of Directors of the respondent Banks. 3. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, which are common to all the writ petitions, the petitioners would submit that there are a number of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks functioning in the Districts, which were managed by the then elected Board of Directors by the respective members, during which period, the pay scales were fixed by the respective managements under 12(3) and 18(1) settlements made between the employees and the management, revising the pay scales with 2% dearness allowance; but this year, the second respondent has issued circulars to all the Joint Directors of Cooperative Societies not to sanction the 2% D.A. to the employees of the members of the petitioners Societies when the same is enhanced to the Government servants. 4. The petitioners would further submit that the impugned circular was issued in the second respondent's proceedings dated 28.2.2002, wherein all the Joint Directors and the Special Officers were directed not to enter into any settlement under Sections 18(1) and 12(3) of the I.D. Act and not to sanction the D.A. or any other allowances until further instructions and hence, it is clearly interfacing the already concluded settlements, which were entered into between the management and the employees; that the Registrar has no power to interfere with the 18(1) settlement which was entered into between the management and the employees and hence, the impugned circular is illegal, contrary to law and against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. 5. Though no counter has been filed on the part of the respondents, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Cooperative) has argued the subject on instructions. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would cite a judgment delivered in South Arcot District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Employees Association VS. 5. Though no counter has been filed on the part of the respondents, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Cooperative) has argued the subject on instructions. 6. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would cite a judgment delivered in South Arcot District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Employees Association VS. Deputy Commissioner of Labour reported in 1998 (III) CTC 143 , wherein a learned single Judge has categorically held that under Sections 9A and 19 of the I.D. Act, any settlement will be in force even after it has expired unless it is cancelled or superseded by another settlement. It has been further held therein that the management cannot alter the service conditions covered by the earlier settlement even after issue of notice under Section 9A of the Act until the earlier settlement expires or is altered or modified or replaced by another settlement. 7. The petitioner would also cite yet another judgment of the Honourable Apex Court delivered in Karnataka SRTC VS. KSRTC Staff & Workers' Federation reported in (1999) 2 SCC 687 , wherein the Apex Court has held that 'the Government cannot order to commit breach of a binding settlement under I.D. Act and a unilateral withdrawal of the said settlement is held to be violative of the binding settlement and penal under Section 29 of the I.D. Act.' 8. On the part of the respondents, the learned A.G.P. (Cooperative) would point out that the impugned proceedings would only lay emphasis and leave instructions to the Regional Joint Registrars and the Special Officers of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks not to enter into any 18(1) and 12(3) settlements under the I.D. Act and not to resort to any new recruitment, regularisation of the temporary staff, wage revision, sanction of D.A. or any other allowance until further instructions are issued from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and hence it cannot be said that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no such powers to issue the said direction as it is found in the impugned order and would pray to dismiss the writ petitions. 9. When the above writ petitions came up for admission before this Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.G.P. (Cooperative) took notice on behalf of the respondents. 9. When the above writ petitions came up for admission before this Court, in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned A.G.P. (Cooperative) took notice on behalf of the respondents. However, since the above writ petitions have been filed on a short point covered by the order impugned herein, this Court is of the view that no lengthy arguments need be necessary, nor any time be lost and hence, a common order is passed. 10. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it could be analysed that all the above writ petitions have been filed testifying the validity of the impugned circular issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the second respondent in all the four writ petitions, thereby instructing their Regional Joint Registrars of Cooperative Societies and the Special Officers of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Banks not to enter into any 18(1) and 12(3) settlements and not to resort to any recruitment, regularisation of temporary staff, wage revision, sanction of D.A. or any other allowance, until further instructions are issued by the Registrar. 11. There is no denying of the fact that the pay scales had been fixed by the respective managements under the 12(3) and 18(1) settlements with the employees and in the said settlements, the revised pay scales had been fixed and were also agreed between the management and the employees; that 2% of the D.A. should be given to its employees on par with the Government servants and for the past several years, the same has been followed by the managements. 12. In the above circumstances, since it has already been held that any settlement will be in force even after it has expired unless it is cancelled or superseded by another settlement and that the management cannot alter the service conditions covered by the earlier settlement and even in the event that the earlier settlement expires, unless it is specifically cancelled or superseded by another settlement in accordance with law, the service conditions cannot be altered or modified or replaced or stopped, not only by a learned single Judge of this Court, but also by the Apex Court as well, especially in view of the fact that in that event, the formal notice as contemplated by law has been issued prior to issuing the circular impugned. 13. For all the above discussions held, the impugned circular, undoubtedly, becomes bad in law and the same is liable only to be quashed. In result, all the above writ petitions succeed and they are allowed. The impugned circular issued by the second respondent in proceedings No.110691/2002/PACB dated 28.2.2002, is quashed. Consequently, W.P.M.P. Nos.31938 to 31949 of 2002 are closed. No costs.