Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. .2. The petitioners are employed in the third respondent Society. While so, the third respondent Society had revised the pay scales of the petitioners by concluding a settlement, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 5. 1999, with effect from 7. 1997, based on the resolution passed by the Bank, on 1. 1999. After the settlement was entered into, the fifth petitioner had retired from service, on 35. 2000 and the sixth petitioner had retired from service, on 30.11.2000. Since the respondents had attempted to cancel the settlement entered into between the employees and the third respondent Bank, the fifth and sixth respondents were constrained to file the present writ petition as it would also affect the salaries of the retired persons. The second respondent had issued the impugned order, dated 12. 1999, directing the third respondent to cancel the 12(3) settlement. A further direction had also been issued to recover the alleged excess amounts paid, as per the concluded settlement. Based on the orders of the second respondent, the third respondent had passed orders directing the recovery of the amounts paid to the petitioners, in accordance with the settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act,1947. 3. Challenging the orders passed by the second and the third respondents, the petitioners had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4050 of 2000. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, this Court, by its order, dated 10. 2000, had dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal before the competent authority, challenging the impugned orders passed by the second and the third respondents. Therefore, the petitioners had preferred an appeal before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, challenging the orders passed by the second and the third respondents. However, the appeal was sent back to the first respondent, who had declined to interfere with the orders passed by the second and third respondents directing the President of the third respondent Society to cancel the Settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the first respondent had directed the President of the third respondent Society to cancel the settlement after issuing a notice, under Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, the first respondent had directed the President of the third respondent Society to cancel the settlement after issuing a notice, under Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In such circumstances, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the claims made by the petitioners. It has been stated that the Ariyalur Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank employees and the Bank had entered into a settlement, on 5. 1999, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, with effect from 7. 1997 and a resolution was passed to that effect by the Bank, on 1. 1999. .5. It has been further stated that the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies had ordered for an enquiry under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the Deputy Registrar had passed the order, on 12. 1999, directing the President of the third respondent Bank to cancel the settlement, concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and to recover the amounts already paid pursuant to the said settlement. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said orders. 6. It has been further stated that before revising the pay scales of the employees, necessary sanction should have been obtained from the competent authorities. Since such sanction or permission had been obtained before the pay scales of the employees were revised by way of a settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, there has been a violation of By-law 27(i)(a). Further, before entering into the settlement, both the parties thereto ought to have considered the financial position of the Bank. Since the bank was already running at a huge loss, the said settlement would have the effect of adding to the loss that the third respondent Bank had already suffered. Further, before entering into the settlement, both the parties thereto ought to have considered the financial position of the Bank. Since the bank was already running at a huge loss, the said settlement would have the effect of adding to the loss that the third respondent Bank had already suffered. Therefore, in the interest of the Bank in particular and the welfare of the employees in general, the Deputy Registrar had passed the impugned order to cancel the settlement which is contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative societies Act, 1983, the rules framed there under and the Government orders and the circulars issued from time to time to regulate the service of the employees working in the Co-operative institutions. 7. It has also been stated that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the second respondent herein, has sufficient powers under Sections 81, 82 and 87 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, to interfere with the unfair settlements. Such a view has been endorsed by this Court by its order, dated 111. 1999, made in a batch of writ petitions. As per G.O.Ms.No.186, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 18. 2000, the scales of pay and other allowances for the various categories of Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Banks have been fixed. Therefore, any settlement concluded, either under Section 12(3) or under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, contrary to the norms fixed under the said Government order would be invalid. .8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, it is seen that the petitioners, who are employees of the third respondent Society, had been paid the revised scales of pay in accordance with the settlement, concluded under Section Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Ac, 1947, on 5. 1999, with effect from 7. 1997, based on the resolution passed by the Bank, on 1. 1999. 9. Though the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, cancelling the said settlement and directing the recovery of the excess payments made in accordance with the settlement, it is seen that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1999. 9. Though the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings, cancelling the said settlement and directing the recovery of the excess payments made in accordance with the settlement, it is seen that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1999, is a communication from the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Ariyalur, the second respondent herein, addressed to the President of the third respondent bank. No consequential proceedings had been issued by the President of the third respondent bank to the employees, who are the petitioners in the present writ petition. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition based on a mere apprehension that the President of the third respondent Society would cancel the settlement concluded under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, revising the pay scales of the petitioners and thereafter, the alleged excess amounts paid to the petitioners, as salary, would be recovered. However, no such orders had been passed by the President of the third respondent Society. In such circumstances, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed on a mere apprehension. It is well settled that a writ petition cannot be filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, based on a mere apprehension. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1999 and the order passed by the first respondent, dated 3. 2001, in the appeal filed by the petitioners, cannot be interfered with, at this stage. However, it goes without saying that it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the proceedings of the third respondent Society, either cancelling the settlement concluded under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or for the recovery of the salary paid to the petitioners in accordance with such a settlement, as and when such orders are passed, in the manner known to law, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.