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 in the year 1991, by concluding a settlement, under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The settlement had been concluded taking into account the turn over of the third respondent Society and by following the directions of the Register of Co-operative Societies. There was no objection from the authorities of the Co-operative Department for the payment of the revised pay scales of the petitioners. After the expiry of the said settlement, the petitioners and the Management of the third respondent Society had entered into another settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 11. 1999. The petitioners had been paid the scales of pay as per the said settlement. However, the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings canceling the settlement entered into by the petitioners and the third respondent Management, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. A further direction had also been issued to recover the alleged excess amount paid as per the concluded settlement. 3. It has been further stated that the orders passed by the second respondent had not been brought to the knowledge of the petitioners. However, after making enquiries, the petitioners came to understand that the third respondent sought to recover the amounts paid to the petitioners under the said settlement, based on the directions issued by the second respondent, by his order, dated 12. 1999. Challenging the orders passed by the second and the third respondents, the petitioners had filed the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.4396 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 a revision petition before the competent authority challenging the impugned orders passed by the second and the third respondents. Therefore, the petitioners had preferred a revision petition before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies challenging the orders passed by the second and the third respondents. 2000, had dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioners to file a revision petition before the competent authority challenging the impugned orders passed by the second and the third respondents. Therefore, the petitioners had preferred a revision petition before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies challenging the orders passed by the second and the third respondents. However, the revision petition 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 18(1) Settlement, concluded under 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 President of the third respondent Society had entered into a settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, without following the instructions issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ariyalur, had sent a letter to the President of the third respondent Society to revise the salary of the said Societys employees, as per the Registrars Circular No.208569/97 Visa, dated 11. 1998. In the said letter, it has been stated that the pay scales of the employees should be revised as per the Registrars Circular No.208569/97 Visa, dated 11. 1998 and that the revised scales of pay should be approved by the Regional Joint Registrar, Perambalur and only after obtaining such approval a settlement could be concluded by the Management. 5. It has been further stated that the Government had issued guidelines to fix the cadre strength and the pay scales of the employees of the land development banks and the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Banks. Without following the instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the President of the third respondent Society had entered into a settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 11. 1999. Without following the instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the President of the third respondent Society had entered into a settlement, under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on 11. 1999. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ariyalur, the second respondent herein, had sent a letter to the President of the third respondent Society to revise the salary of the employees, as per the Registrars Circular No.208569/97 Visa, dated 11. 1998. In the said letter, it was said that the pay scales of the employees should be revised as per the Registrars Circular No.208569/97 Visa, dated 11. 1998 and the revised scales of pay should be approved by the Regional Joint Registrar, Perambalur. 6. It has also been stated that only after the approval of the Regional Joint Registrar, Perambalur, the settlement should be made. In the said letter, the second respondent had further stated that the enhanced pay made in accordance with the settlement, dated 11. 1999, should be reduced and it was directed that the President of the third respondent Society should recover the excess amount paid to the employees. Based on the said letter, the President of the third respondent Society had revised the pay of the employees and had ordered the repayment of the excess amount received by the employees as per the settlement, through his letter, dated 2. 2000. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, dated 10. 2000, in W.P.No.4395 of 2000, the petitioner had filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, who had heard the revision petition filed by the employees, had held that the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ariyalur, to cancel the irregular settlement, was legal and valid. It was further held that the President of the third respondent Society had failed to follow Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, while revising the pay scales and therefore, necessary action should be taken in accordance with the Section 9(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. It has been further stated that before entering into the settlement with the employees, the Management of the third respondent society ought to have followed the instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, issued in Circular No.208569/97, for pay fixation. 7. It has been further stated that before entering into the settlement with the employees, the Management of the third respondent society ought to have followed the instructions of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, issued in Circular No.208569/97, for pay fixation. The Registrar is empowered to issue such directions to the Societies, under Section 181 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies had issued the directions for pay fixation through his Circular No.208569/97 Visa, dated 11. 1998. Therefore, the said illegal settlement cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Since the settlement concluded between the employees and the third respondent Management is against the welfare of the Society, instructions could be given to modify or cancel the settlement. Hence, the order passed in the revision petition is legal and valid. 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 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Ac, 1947, on 11. 1999. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the second respondent had issued the impugned proceedings canceling the said settlement and directing the recovery of the alleged excess payment made in accordance with the settlement. However, it is seen that the impugned proceedings of the second respondent, dated 12. 1999, is a communication from the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Ariyalur, the second respondent herein, addressed to the President of the third respondent Society. No consequential proceedings had been issued by the President of the third respondent Society 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 18(1) 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. No such orders had been passed by the President of the third respondent Society. It is well settled that a writ petition cannot be filed on a mere apprehension. No such orders had been passed by the President of the third respondent Society. It is well settled that a writ petition cannot be filed 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 revision petition 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 canceling 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 has passed, in the manner known to law, if so advised. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.