JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. Writ Appeal Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2024 are filed aggrieved by the common order, dated 30.04.2024, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.11778 and 16691 of 2023, respectively. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Appeals is one and the same, the matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Heard Sri Goda Shiva, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel on record for appellant, Sri A.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Co-operative societies for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, as narrated by respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals, are that they were initially appointed on contract basis as workers in Mother Dairy (Nalgonda & Ranga Reddy Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited) in the year 1993; that subsequently, a note dated 20.02.2003 was issued informing that the said Dairy was converted into Nalgonda & Ranga Reddy Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-Operative Union Limited (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as ‘NARMAC’), subject to condition that the service conditions of the employees would be protected and according to service conditions prior to conversion, the service Rules of Government employees were applicable to the employees of appellant-union as well. It was further averred that a settlement has been reached between the Management of NARMAC and the workmen under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was reduced into writing as MoU dated 30.06.2005; and that as per one of the conditions of the said MoU, the workmen will accept the Service Rules and Regulations of the Union and subsequent amendments from time to time. 4.1. Thereafter, the Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 21.10.2021 enhancing the age of superannuation of all employees of Co-Operative Societies from 58/60 to 61 years, as per amendment of Telangana Public Employment/Regulation of Age of Superannuation Act, 1984 and the same is made applicable to all the employees in Telangana State Dairy Development Co-Operative Federation Limited (TSDDCF). 4.2. It is the specific case of respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals that the said G.O.Ms.No.34 is applicable to the converted employees whose service conditions are governed by the same regulations prior to conversion. 4.2. It is the specific case of respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals that the said G.O.Ms.No.34 is applicable to the converted employees whose service conditions are governed by the same regulations prior to conversion. That respondent No.1 in WA.No.1352 of 2024 along with others made a representation dated 31.10.2022 to respondent No.3 with a request to implement G.O.Ms.34, i.e., extension of revised pay scales and enhancement of age of superannuation from 58/60 to 61 years. Respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 14.12.2002 informed respondent No.5 to take necessary action for carrying out amendment to the bye-laws for enhancement of age of superannuation, however, respondent No.5 issued notice dated 21.04.2023 retiring respondent No.1 in WA.No.1351 of 2024 on attaining the age of 58 years. Aggrieved by the same, he filed WP.No.11778 of 2023. 5. Respondent No.1 in WA.No.1352 of 2024 on apprehension that she would also be retired at the age of 58 years, filed WP.No.16691 of 2023, specifically contending that amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 is contrary to Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act r/w Section 2(p) of Telangana Co- Operative Societies Act, 1964 r/w Rule 28(6) of Telangana Co-Operative Societies Rules, 1964. 6. The learned single Judge of this court vide common order dated 30.04.2024 allowed both the Writ Petitions by observing that amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 are in violation of principles of natural justice since no specific notice was issued to the employees before making such amendment, which affects the service conditions of the employees. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Writ Appeals are preferred by the employer. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-employer contended that the appellant which was originally registered under Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, was converted into a society registered under TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 and therefore, GO.Ms.No.34, dated 21.10.2021 which was issued under Rule 28(6) of Telangana Co-Operative Services Rules, 1964 is not applicable to the appellant. Learned senior counsel further contended that respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals were absorbed into service pursuant to MoU dated 30.06.2005, subject to certain terms and conditions and condition No.6 thereof specifies that workmen shall accept the service regulations of Union and subsequent amendments from time to time. 8. Learned senior counsel further contended that respondent No.1 in both the Writ Appeals were absorbed into service pursuant to MoU dated 30.06.2005, subject to certain terms and conditions and condition No.6 thereof specifies that workmen shall accept the service regulations of Union and subsequent amendments from time to time. 8. Learned senior counsel also contended that the observation of learned single Judge that amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 done without giving notice to the employees is in violation of principles of natural justice, is contrary to Section 10 of TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 and as such, he prayed to set aside the impugned orders. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1-workmen in both the Appeals contended that the learned single Judge, on proper adjudication and interpretation of relevant laws, has rightly allowed the Writ Petitions and hence, the contentions put forth by the learned senior counsel appearing for appellant are unsustainable. He further contended that as per Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, service conditions of workmen/employee cannot be changed without notice to the employees. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice has been issued to the employees and therefore, amendment to bye-laws No.32.4 and 32.5 in respect of age of superannuation is contrary to Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and taking into account the said fact, the learned single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petitions and hence, these Writ Appeals are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 10. There is no dispute with regard to conversion of appellant- Union from Co-Operative Society to Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society and its subsequent registration under the TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1955. It is also not in dispute that a settlement was arrived between the employees and appellant under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same was reduced into writing as MoU dated 30.06.2005 and that, as per clause-6 thereof, the workman will accept the service rules and regulations of the union and the subsequent amendments from time to time. While the things stood thus, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 21.01.2021, amending Sub-rule(6) to Rule 28 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58/60 to 61 years on par with the State Government employees. While the things stood thus, the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.34, dated 21.01.2021, amending Sub-rule(6) to Rule 28 of the Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 enhancing the age of superannuation from 58/60 to 61 years on par with the State Government employees. A bare reading of the said G.O. makes it clear that it is issued only in respect of employees covered under Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964, therefore, the same is applicable only to the employees covered under the said Act. 11. In the present case, the employees are governed by the TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1955 and as such, the said G.O.Ms.No.34 has no application to the employees of the appellant. Thus, in this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1-employee that the said G.O.Ms.No.34 is applicable to appellant-union holds no water. 12. In the case on hand, the appellant has passed resolution amending bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5. The grievance of respondent No.1-employees is that they were not issued notice prior to amendment of bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 and the learned single Judge has set aside the said amendment on that sole ground. 13. Section 10(1) of the TS Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995 empowers the society to amend any of the provisions of its bye-laws by resolution of its general body or by the representative general body by giving written notice to its members at least 20 days immediately preceding the date of meeting. Thus, the said provision does not specify that notice should be given to the employees prior to making any amendment to the bye-laws. 14. Further, it is also appropriate to note that as per Clause-6 of MoU, the workmen will accept the service rules and regulations of the union and the subsequent amendments from time to time. In other words, under the said MoU the employees have unconditionally agreed that they will accept the service rules and regulations and the subsequent amendments from time to time. In the teeth of the said MoU and also in the light of Section 10(1) of the Act, 1995, no notice is required to be issued to the employees before making any amendments to the bye-laws of the appellant-society. 15. Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. In the teeth of the said MoU and also in the light of Section 10(1) of the Act, 1995, no notice is required to be issued to the employees before making any amendments to the bye-laws of the appellant-society. 15. Coming to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited Vs. State of Orissa and others , [ (2018) 6 SCC 195 ] which was referred to and relied upon by the learned single Judge in the impugned orders, it is a case where the age of superannuation was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years and in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:- “In 1956, legislature inserted Section 9A of the Act which makes it obligatory on the part of the employer that he is bound to give advance notice to the employee if he intends to change certain things as envisaged under Section 9A of the Act read with Fourth Schedule.” 16. This Court with great respect is in complete agreement with the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. However, in the case on hand, admittedly, a settlement under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been reached between the appellant-Management and the workmen, including respondent No.1 in both the cases, and the same was reduced into writing as MoU and that as per one of the conditions of the said MoU, the workmen will accept the Service rules and regulations of the Union and subsequent amendments from time to time. Therefore, the said MoU is binding on the parties to the same, i.e., the appellant and its workmen including respondent No.1 in both the cases. 17. Further, proviso-(a) to Section 9-A of the I.D. Act reads as hereunder:- “Provided that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change- (a) where the change is effected in pursuance of any settlement or award.” 18. A harmonious reading of the above proviso to Section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the MoU dated 30.06.2005 entered into between the appellant-Management and its employees, makes it clear that the employees are bound by the MoU, as per which no notice is required to be given to the employees for effecting any change in the service rules and regulations and the subsequent amendments from time to time. As such, the workmen having entered into MoU dated 30.06.2005, cannot turn around from the same and ventilate the grievance that their service rules and regulations were changed without issuing any notice to them. 19. In the light of the aforesaid aspects of the case, where the existence of MoU dated 30.06.2005 is undisputed, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paradeep Phosphates Limited ’s case (cited supra) does come to the aid of the workmen of the appellant, i.e., respondent No.1 in both the cases and as such, the amendment of bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 by the appellant without giving any prior notice to the workmen including respondent No.1 in both the cases cannot be said to be in violation of principles of natural justice. 20. In the light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the learned single Judge has erred in holding that the amendments to bye-law Nos.32.4 and 32.5 are in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the learned single Judge are liable to be set aside. 21. In the result, both the appeals-W.A.Nos.1351 and 1352 of 2024 are allowed, setting aside the common order, dated 30.04.2024, passed in W.P.Nos.11778 and 16691 of 2023. 22. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.