IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9444 of 2000 Shyam Bahadur Tiwary son of Late Kalika Tiwary, resident of village Jalalpur, P.S.Jalalpur, District Saran, at present residing at Mohalla Butanbari, Sahibganj, Chapra, District Chpara Pettiioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra 3. Sri Jaipat Manjhi, son of Late Algu Manjhi, resident of village Jalalpur, P.S.Jalalpur, District Saran (Chapra). Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr.K.P.Gupta, SC 16 Mr.Binod Kumar, AC to SC 16 Mr.Dhirendra Kumar, AC to SC 16 ----------- 05 09.11.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.8.2000 in Claim Case No.113/1997 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-cum-competent officer under the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 directing inter alia the petitioner to pay arrears of minimum wages of Rs.2802.60 along with a sum of Rs.2802.60 by way of compensation to the Respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is bad in law inasmuch as the authority has failed to appreciate the fact that the same has been passed without taking into account the relevant materials such as Eviction Suit filed by the petitioner against respondent no.3. On a bare perusal of the impugned order however, it is seen that the facts relating to respondent no.3 living in the hutment on the land belonging to the present petitioner has been taken note of and so also the various other aspects relating to the material facts of the case. The authority has thus arrived at its 2 conclusion by passing a reasoned order. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner has sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, without however, pursuing the statutory remedy by way of appeal as provided under Section 20(6) of the said Act, vide Bihar Amendment. Learned counsel for the State is present and is heard. It is well settled that errors of judgment of an authority are not subject to judicial review by this Court in its writ jurisdiction and as such the writ petition is not maintainable which is accordingly dismissed. Chandran (Vikash Jain, J.)