JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. Normally people proceed on the assumption that the proceedings in the Court are free from any taint and all the parties to an order abide by it, unless it is set aside by a superior Court. In this case, however, the High Court was taken for a ride, and fraud of a very high order was played. 2. The 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') was engaged as temporary Typist, on daily wage basis in the then Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank, in the year 1987. That was merged with the Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank, the appellant herein, in 1994. Since the respondent and certain other employees were found to be surplus, an order of retrenchment was passed, complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Challenging the retrenchment, the respondent filed I.D. No. 395 of 1998, under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, before the Labour Court, Warangal. An award was passed on 20.08.1990, setting aside the order of retrenchment, and directing his reinstatement into service. 3. Challenging the said award, the appellant filed W.P. No. 1514 of 1991. Initially, an order of interim stay was passed, while admitting the writ petition. The respondent filed an application with a prayer to vacate the interim order. Hon'ble Sri Justice Quadri, as he then was, passed an order modifying the said order to the effect that the appellant shall be under obligation to pay wages under Section 17-B of the Act, if they do not intend to reinstate the respondent. However, a fake, fabricated and fraudulent order was created in the name of the Hon'ble Sri Justice Sri C.V.N. Sastry, which proceeded as though there is a I direction for reinstatement, as a final measure. Treating the same as a genuine order, the appellant reinstated the respondent into service. 4. When it came across the two conflicting orders, the appellant addressed a letter to this Court. Hon'ble Sri Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan, heard the matter on 03.07.1996. On the allegation as to fabrication of order, it was represented by the respondent that somebody connected with the High Court staff handed over the order to him. His Lordship took note of this development and ordered an enquiry, and it was directed that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 5. On the allegation as to fabrication of order, it was represented by the respondent that somebody connected with the High Court staff handed over the order to him. His Lordship took note of this development and ordered an enquiry, and it was directed that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 5. While the matter stood thus, hardly within one week i.e., on 10.07.1996, an endorsement appeared on the record, to the effect that nothing needs to be done on judicial side, and the matter can be taken only on administrative side. On 16.07.1996, the writ petition is said to have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Sri Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan. 6. After the respondent got reinstated into service and W.P. No. 1514 of 1991 was dismissed, he filed M.P. No. 8 of 1997 before the Labour Court, Warangal, under Section 33-C(2) of the Act, claiming difference of wages amounting to Rs. 41,986/-. According to him, wages stipulated by the Government for the concerned post were not paid to him. The Labour Court passed an order, dated 21.07.2000, allowing the application and directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 56,698/-. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P. No. 15857 of 2000. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order 18.10.2005. Hence, this writ appeal. 7. Heard Sri A.H. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The facts narrated above disclose that the very reinstatement of the respondent into service was on the basis of a fake and fabricated order. That fact was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, who heard the present writ petition. However, that was not taken into account by making the following observation: "Sri A.H. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the 1st respondent had indulged in forgery of documents, had produced fake orders of this Court seeking reinstatement and that the matter was under investigation. Learned counsel would urge this Court not to show any indulgence in favour of such a person. He would submit that atleast till investigation is completed, payment of the amount, as directed by the Tribunal, should be deferred. Learned counsel would urge this Court not to show any indulgence in favour of such a person. He would submit that atleast till investigation is completed, payment of the amount, as directed by the Tribunal, should be deferred. This question as to whether the petitioner had submitted fake orders of this Court is said to be the subject-matter of investigation and is not a matter which arises for consideration in this writ petition, which has been filed challenging the order of the Tribunal in M.P. No. 8 of 1997. In any event, the claim of the first respondent herein is for payment of minimum wages, which the employer is bound to pay..." 9. The nature of fraud played by the respondent is evident from the following. 10. In the order, dated 28.03.1991, Hon'ble Sri Justice Quadri, passed an order in W.V.M.P. No. 450 of 1991 in W.P.M.P. No. 1838 of 1991 in W.P. No. 1514 of 1991 as under: "Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the interim stay is made absolute if the following conditions are fulfilled:- 1. The petitioner shall deposit one half of the back wages within two months from today. On the amount being so deposited the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing security, and 2. On the petitioner paying to the 2nd respondent the last drawn wages every month in terms of Section17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act in case the petitioner does not reinstate the 2nd respondent within two weeks from today. In default of compliance of any of the above conditions, the interim stay shall stand vacated." 11. This, however, was manipulated to be a different order in the name of the Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.N. Sastry with the date 06.02.1996. It reads: "Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the final order is made absolute if the following conditions are fulfilled:- 1. The petitioner shall deposit one half of the back-wages within two months from today. On the amount being so deposited the 2nd respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing security, and 2. On the petitioner paying to the 2nd respondent the last drawn wages every month in terms of Section17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act in the result the final order is made directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service retrospective effect." 12. On the petitioner paying to the 2nd respondent the last drawn wages every month in terms of Section17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act in the result the final order is made directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service retrospective effect." 12. The difference is clearly visible. On the basis of that order, the respondent got himself reinstated into service. More curious aspect is that the Hon'ble Sri Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan, passed a detailed order on 03.07.1996, referring to these facts. However, he is said to have dismissed the writ petition on 16.07.1996. We have meticulously verified the record. The signatures on the two orders said to have been passed by Hon'ble Sri Justice T.N.C. Rangarajan do not tally. It is rather difficult to imagine that a learned Judge of the High Court, who took serious note of fabrication of orders and ordered enquiry has glassed over the issue, just within ten days i.e. on 16.07.1996, as though nothing happened, and dismissed the W.P., conferring benefit upon the person, whom he indicted and made him to face the enquiry. We compared the signatures at various levels, and find that the one in the final order is at variance. 13. With this background, the respondent ought to have been just thrown out of employment. That did not happen and he continued in service. His greed did not stop at that and he wanted to fleece the appellant to the maximum extent. He filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act. 14. It is too well known that an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can be filed only when there is prior determination of wages or when there is no dispute about the quantum thereof. In the instant case, he claimed difference of minimum wages, without even making an effort to approach the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act. When the appellant seriously disputed the very nature of engagement, there was absolutely no basis for the Labour Court to entertain the application and pass an order in his favour. Learned Single Judge has also ignored certain basic requirements, viz., that a claim for minimum wages or for the difference of minimum wages must be made first before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, and only when the amount so determined is not paid, the remedy is under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can be availed. Learned Single Judge has also ignored certain basic requirements, viz., that a claim for minimum wages or for the difference of minimum wages must be made first before the Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, and only when the amount so determined is not paid, the remedy is under Section 33-C(2) of the Act can be availed. Viewed from any angle, the respondent did not deserve any relief whatever. 15. The writ appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. As a consequence, the order passed in the writ petition is set aside and the award passed by the Labour Court in M.P. No. 8 of 1997, dated 21.07.2000, is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of. Appeal allowed