Judgment :- This order shall govern these two writ petitions in WP Nos.9342 and 23590 of 2005. The former is brought forth by the Tamil Nadu State Primary Cooperative Bank All Employees Union represented by its District President, Nagercoil, while the latter is brought forth by a member of that Union. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side. .3. As could be seen from the averments made in the affidavits in support of the petitions, and also the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the members of the Union represented by the President of the District in the first petition and also the petitioner in the second petition were all employed in different categories of employment in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank in Nagercoil, and appointments were made directly under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative .Societies Act. As per the fixation of pay originally made, they were being paid. Subsequently, there was a settlement entered into between the employees and the management under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act since the Cooperative Societies are governed by the provisions of the statutory benefits conferred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement was made in the year 1999. As per the settlement arrived, the salary benefits of the petitioners, the members of the Union and other employees of the Society was revised with effect from 7. 1997. It was to be given effect for a period of five years. Accordingly, the payments were made. While the matter stood thus, it was revised without giving any opportunity whatsoever and acting prejudicial to the interest of the members of the Union, and hence, various employees Union including the Tamilnadu State Primary Cooperative Bank All Employees Union, filed writ petitions before this Court in WP Nos.23162 to 23165 of 2002 whereby an order came to be passed by this Court at the time of the disposal that while a settlement has been arrived at under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also Sec.18(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, the pay scale once fixed pursuant to the settlement arrived at, cannot be altered or modified or replaced or stopped. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have come forward challenging the circular dated 2. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have come forward challenging the circular dated 2. 2004 referred to in the petitions and have sought for a direction to the subordinates including the respondents 2 and 3, to re-fix the salary by considering the settled position of law. Hence, it has become necessary to file W.P.No.9342/2005 seeking to quash the circular dated 2. 2004, issued by the first respondent and to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to re-fix the salary. As far as the member of the Union who is the petitioner in WP No.23590/2005 is concerned, he has sought for the consequential re-fixation following the circular dated 2. 2004. 4. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the respondents also. .5. Concededly, all the members of the Union and also the petitioner in WP No.23590/2005 were employed in different categories in the Primary Cooperative Bank, which was established under the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act. It is also not in controversy that there was a settlement entered into between the employees and the management under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, pursuant to which the salary was re-fixed, and they were also being paid. It is also not disputed by the respondents side that the settlement arrived at between the employees on the one side and the management on the other side, came to be given effect from 7. 1997 onwards. While the matter stood thus, the impugned circular was issued on 2. 2004 to the respondents 2 and 3 to re-fix the salary. Needless to say that an occasion came before the Apex Court in a case reported in 1999 (2) SCC 687 (KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. KSRTC STAFF AND WORKERS FEDERATION AND ANOTHER), and it has also been subsequently followed by this Court. Once a settlement has been arrived at between the management and the employees under Sec.12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, no question of any alteration or modification or replacement or stoppage of any of the benefits which accrued to the employees as per the settlement, would arise. 6. In the instant case, what is noticed further is that the first respondent by issuing a circular and also giving a direction to the respondents 2 and 3, has acted detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the members of the union and also the petitioner in WP No.23590/2005. 6. In the instant case, what is noticed further is that the first respondent by issuing a circular and also giving a direction to the respondents 2 and 3, has acted detrimental and prejudicial to the interest of the members of the union and also the petitioner in WP No.23590/2005. No material is available indicating that they were given opportunity before any circular for re-fixation was issued. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a glaring case of offending the principles of natural justice. Once there was a settlement under Sec.12(3) of the Act, and it was also given effect from 1997, and it was for a period of five years, and it was in force and worked out, no question of alteration or modification on the re-fixation of the salary and other benefits would arise and that too even without notice to the opposite party namely the employees. Under the circumstances, without any hesitation whatsoever, the circular dated 2. 2004, referred to in the writ petition, has got to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed. Following the same, the orders pursuant to the circular, which are challenged in WP No.23590/2005 by the individual member, stand quashed. 7. Hence, both these writ petitions are allowed. However, what is made above will not stand in the way of the respondents following the procedural formalities by issuing notice to the employees what is expected in law. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMPs and WVMPs are closed.