IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.962 of 2010 1. SMT.LALITA DEVI W/O RAMBRIKSH MAHTO R/O MOHALLA- RAMBAG CHANDI P.S. MITHANPURA DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE ACT, MUZAFFARPUR 3. ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSION CUM AUTHORITY UNDER THE MINIMUM WAGES ACT 1948, MUZAFFARPUR 4. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MUSHARI DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR 5. SRI MAHILA GRIH UDYOG LIJJAT PAPAD RAMBAG BRANCH, THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR, MOHALLA RAMBAG, P.O. RAMNA DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2/ 18/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be the worker awarded certain wages along with others in Minimum Wages Case Nos.130/04 to 137/04 by the Court of Assistant Commissioner and competent authority at Muzaffarpur. The employer preferred Appeal No.8/05. The appellate order annexed to the writ petition dated 25.1.2007 states that the appellant employer had filed materials that the dues of the workers concerned had been paid annexing receipts and affidavits in support thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, a beneficiary of the award, was not heard at the appellate stage and denies receipt of any money. Learned counsel invites the attention of the Court to the pleadings in paragraph-12 of the writ application that the employer had taken the signature of the petitioner and others on blank paper as a receipt to defraud her. 2 Fraud and forgery are questions of fact for which the proper foundation has to be laid. On the own pleadings of the petitioner, she acknowledges her signature, but alleges wrong use of the paper. Those are matters which can only be examined in an appropriate case as the petitioner may be advised where evidence, both oral and documentary, shall have to be led for adjudication. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)