IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16632 of 2009 1. SRI NAND KISHORE TIWARY S/O LATE BHAGWAT TIWARY R/O VILL.- SAHORI, P.S.- SARAI, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LABOUR DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER LABOUR DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER-CUM-LABOUR INSPECTOR LABOUR DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, GORAUL, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 5. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. THE CIRCLE OFFICER GORAUL, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 8. RAM BILASH BAITHA S/O BHARDUL BAITHA R/O VILL.- SAHORI, P.S. AND P.O.- SARAI, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 02. 07.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.9. 1995 allowing the minimum wages claim preferred against him by respondent no.8. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2009 passed in Appeal No. 02/98-99 preferred by him against the order dated 30.9.1995 directing him to deposit 50% of the amount as awarded by the order dated 30.9.1995. The petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit also questions the final order dated 12.3.2010 passed in the appeal dismissing it for non-compliance of the direction to deposit 50% of the amount awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 that the order dated 30.9.1995 was contrary to the earlier enquiry reports dated 17.11.1990 and 4.12.1991. This has not been properly considered in the impugned order dated 30.9.1995. Therefore the entire original records may be called for and this Court may adjudicate upon the same thereafter. Since the order dated 30.9.1995 was not sustainable in the law. The question of asking the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount in appeal shall also not sustainable. Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as amended by the State of Bihar by Bihar Act, 09 of 1988. He submits that by insertion of Sub-section 5A in Section 20, a statutory requirement for deposit of 50% of the claim amount has been statutorily provided for which is required to be subsequently adjusted with the decreed amount. The petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to him. The methodology for institution of the appeal has been statutorily provided for. The appeal filed without compliance of the statutory requirement is no appeal at all. This Court therefore finds no error in the orders dated 22.8.2009 and 12.3.2010 calling for interference as it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to usurp the powers of 3 the appellate authority without requiring compliance of the statutory amendment as contended in Section 20 of Sub-Section 5A by taking upon this Court the extraordinary power to test the order dated 30.9.1995. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)