Judgment :- This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the first respondent in his proceedings RC.No.141410/2004/ARDB.3, dated 010. 2004 and quash the same. .2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the first respondent herein, addressed a letter dated 10. 2004 to all the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies (except Chennai Region). Paragraph 3 of the said letter, which is relevant, reads as follows:- ."3. The Special Officer of all Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Banks should be instructed to ensure that the salary of the employees are re-fixed as per G.O.186 of 16.08.2000 to safeguard the interest of the Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank and Public for the purpose for which the Primary Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Banks are created." 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead of the Settlement arrived under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the bank and the employees, the direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent herein, to all the Regional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies and in particular the 6th respondent in the instant case will be contrary to the settlement arrived at under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, the letter is under challenge. .4. The 6th respondent Special Officer has filed a counter-affidavit. Paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit reads as follows:- ."5. Hence, the Respondent-1, Respondent-2, Respondent-3 authorities have decided to revise the salaries in public interest. Respondent-1 to Respondent-3 Authorities have power to give direction to their subordinates to implement the Government Order. Moreover, it will be open to the petitioner to contest the proceedings of the 6th respondent, if he acts upon the letter of the 1st Respondent in RC-141410/2004 ARDB 3 Dated 10. 2004. Hence, the petition filed is premature." 5. It is further contended that the Co-operative Bank has the power to revise the salary by adopting the procedure laid down under law. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit that the authorities are not interfering with the settlement, though the bank has got the liberty to revise the salary under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent Mr.R.Parthiban, contended that the direction is issued to implement the G.O.186 dated 18. 2000 which was upheld by this court. 6. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent Mr.R.Parthiban, contended that the direction is issued to implement the G.O.186 dated 18. 2000 which was upheld by this court. In any event, it is stated that no notice for revising the pay has been issued by the 6th respondent so as to come before this court by way of writ petition. If and when such proceedings are initiated in accordance with law, it is always open to the writ petitioners to challenge such proceedings as provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 7. In this case, the impugned order is only a general direction issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent herein to all the Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to implement the G.O.No.186 dated 18. 2000. There is no dispute that on the basis of the said letter, the sixth respondent has to adopt the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by issuance of appropriate notice and by providing opportunity to the petitioners to ventilate their grievance. Since no action has been taken by the sixth respondent, the challenge to the said letter dated 10. 2004 appears to be premature. The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides for issuance of notice before revising the scale of pay and the petitioners will be entitled to the reasonable opportunity to challenge the same in accordance with the rules and procedure prescribed. Since the sixth respondent has stated that they are not contemplating any action till date and due process of law will be followed, the challenge in the present writ petition has to fail only for the reason that the writ petitioners have come before this court without a cause of action for the same. If the sixth respondent or any other respondent takes action for revising the scale of pay in accordance with Industrial Disputes Act and/or any other provisions of law, it is always open to the writ petitioners to challenge the same as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act or as may be provided under law. 8. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.