JUDGMENT : T. Meenakumari, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the award in industrial dispute in Claim Petition No. 2 of 1994, dated November 1, 1994. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while the second respondent was working at Coimbatore, he was transferred to Erode on May 7, 1992. The second respondent had received a sum of Rs. 600 towards Bonus Advance at Erode. Thereafter the second respondent voluntarily abandoned from attending his duty. By the time the second respondent approached the Labour Court, Coimbatore, u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act on the ground that the petitioner/management has not paid wages as directed by the Government in G.O. (2D) No. 14 Labour and Employment Department dated March 19, 1991. In the above G.O., it was ordered that a minimum wage of Rs, 544.75 should be paid, while the second respondent paid only Rs. 500. He claimed the difference wage of Rs. 44.75 and as the difference amount was not paid, he filed claim petition before the lower Court on failure of conciliation proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the claim petition filed u/s 33-C(2) itself is not maintainable as he has to approach the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. But the Labour Court negatived this contention of the petitioner/ management. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the second respondent ought to have moved the appropriate authority under the Minimum Wages Act and not u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent relying on the judgment reported in Ananda Transport Vs. M. Chelliah and Others, (1975) 2 LLJ 39 and argued that fee petition u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the claim can be maintained even after the termination of fee employment. 5. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of fee Supreme Court reported in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others, AIR 1991 SC 520 . The Apex Court has held feus: "..... 5. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of fee Supreme Court reported in Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. Vs. Chandi Lal Saha and others, AIR 1991 SC 520 . The Apex Court has held feus: "..... That is, if there is no dispute as to rates between fee employer and fee employee and fee only question is whether a particular payment at fee agreed rate is due or not, then Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act would not be attracted at all, and fee appropriate remedy would only be either u/s 15(1) of fee Payment of Wages Act, 1936, or u/s 33-C(2) of fee Industrial Disputes Act." 6. In view of fee judgment of Supreme Court (supra), it has to be held that the petition itself is maintainable u/s 33-C(2) of fee Industrial Disputes Act and fee Labour Court has passed fee orders on merit and as held by this Court in P. Nithiyan and S. Prasanna v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 W.L.R 627 that High Court is not an appellate authority over fee Labour Court. Hence I see no grounds to interfere wife fee above order passed by fee Labour Court and consequently, the above writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 1893 of 1995 is closed.