Judgment K. B. N. Singh, P. S. Sahay, J. 1. In this application a prayer is made for quashing an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, dated the 30th August, 1973, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 8. 2. Respondent No.2. Visnudeo Prasad, was appointed as a part-time temporary pass-book writer, in the University Branch of the Allahabad bank, Patna, by the predecessor-in-office of petititioner No, 1, sometime in the year 1970. It is stated that the remuneration payable to Respondent no.2 was one-third of the initial full rate payable to a permanent clerk of the said Bank. It is alleged in the writ application that the temporary service of the respondent was allowed to continue till the 9th May, 1972, when it was terminated as no work was left to be done by the said respondent in the bank. The respondent thereafter filed a petition under Sec.26 of the bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)before the Labourt, Court Patna, for reinstatement to his post with all related benefits. A copy of the said petition has been filed as Annexure 3. 3. Before the Labour Court witnesses were examined on behalf of the parties and the main contention on behalf of the petitioners was that it being a termination simpliciter in terms of the contract, the said respondent was not entitled to any relief under Sec.26 of the said Act, as it covered only cases of dismissal or discharge and not termination simpliciter. 4. The Labour Court found that Respondent No.2 worked for more than six months without any break from the 1st January, 1971 to the 9th may, 1972 the date on which his service was terminated, and, therefore, section 26 of the Act was attracted and as neither, one months notice nor one months wages in lieu of such notice way paid to the said respondent, the order of termination of his service was invalid The order of termination was accordingly set aside and a direction was issued to reinstate Respondent no.2 with all his dues. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that Sec.26 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, before its amendment by the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act II of 1975), was applicable only to a case of dismissal or discharge. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that Sec.26 of the Act, as it existed at the relevant time, before its amendment by the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act II of 1975), was applicable only to a case of dismissal or discharge. In other words, it was applicable only to a case where an employee was being removed by way of punishment and not to a case where the service of the employee is terminated on account of the fact that no work is left for him in the establishment, a in the instant case Learned Counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Chemical Company limited V/s. D. K, Barman ( 1969 BLJR 510 ). wherein an curlier Bench decision of this Court in the case of Jagdish Vastralaya V/s. The State of Bihar (AIR 1964 patna 180) was relied upon. 6. A reference So the decision in. the case of Jagdish Vashtralaya (supra)shows that Sec.26 of the Act, as it existed then, would be attracted only in the cases where dismissal or discharge was as a punishment after a domestic enquiry, prior to its amendment by Bihar act II of i.975 relevant portion of the old provision of Sec.26, as it existed then, read as follows : " (1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge from his employment any employee who has been in such employment continously for a period of not less than six months except for a reasonable cause and without giving such employee at least one months notice or one months wages in lieu of such notice. . . . . . . . . . . " Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid two Bench decisions apply to the case of the petitioners, as the application for reinstatement was filed by Respondent No.2 in the year 1972, and it was disposed of by the Labour Court on the 30th August, 1973, before Sec.26 of the Act was amended by Bihar Act il of 1975, 7 As none appeared on behalf of the concerned employee (respondent no.2), and, as an important point was raised, we called upon the Government Advocate to assist us in the matter. 8. 8. The petitioners contention found favour with us and on the 2nd november, 1979, by a judgment delivered in the open Court, we allowed the writ application and quashed the award (Annexure 8 ). However, at the time of signing of the judgment, some doubt arose in our mind of there being some earlier Ordinances on the point, and we looked into the matter. We noticed that Sec.26 of the Act was first amended, during the relevant time, by Bihar Ordinance No.15 of 1972, published in the Bihar Gazettee extraordinary Issue No.202, dated the 9th March, 1972), and the relevant portion of the amended provision read as follows :- The above amended provision was continued by substitution by successive ordinances, being Bihar Ordinance No.54 of 1972 (published in the Bihar gazette Extraordinary Issue No.938, dated the 1st May, 1972), Bihar ordinance No.104 of 1972 (published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary issue No.656, dated the 5th July, 1972) Bihar Ordinance no.149 of 1972 (published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary Issue no.1009, dated the 24th September, 1972), Bihar Ordinance No.28 of 1973 (published in the Bihar Gazette, Extraordinary Issue No.426 dated the 8th april, 1973), Bihar Ordinance No, 75 of 1973 (published in the Bihar Gazette, extraordinary Issue No.855, dated the 26th August, 1973 ). Thereafter the same provision was continued by three more Ordinances issued in the year 1974, before finally the same provision was incorporated in the Act by Bihar act II of 1975. 9 It is thus evident that when the application by the concerned workman was filed before the Labour Court in the year 1972, Sec.26 of the Act was already amended and, therefore, the Labour Court was right in holding that Sec.20 of the Act, as amended, was applicable to the case of respondent No.2, whose termination was otherwise then dismissal or dischargeby way of punishment. We therefore did not sign the judgment and the matter was thereafter listed under the hearing to be mentioned on the 2st January, 1980, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners was informed of the position and was asked to be ready for re-hearing. The matter was thereafter reheard. 10. We therefore did not sign the judgment and the matter was thereafter listed under the hearing to be mentioned on the 2st January, 1980, and the learned Counsel for the petitioners was informed of the position and was asked to be ready for re-hearing. The matter was thereafter reheard. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in view of the amending ordinances, could not press the contention advanced by him that the Labour court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the concerned workman, and we accordingly hold that the Labour Court was right in entertaining the application of the concerned workman and had jurisdiction to pass an order under section 26 of the Act. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, has submitted that as there is some indication in the award that there was no work left and, therefore, no order for reinstatement of Respondent No.2, Vishnudeo prasad, should have been made. There is no clear finding on the point one way or the other and the Labour Court has proceeded on the assumption that even if there was no work left, Respondent No.2 was entitled either to one months notice or one months pay in lieu of the notice before his service could be terminated. That not having been done, the Labour Court quashed the order of termination of the service of Respondent No.2 and directed his reinstatement with all his dues. As we have already pointed out, Respondent no.2 has not appeared in this Court in spite of service of notice and we do not know, whether he is any longer interested in being reinstated or not. The option with the employer to serve a months notice or to pay a months salary in lieu of the notice before terminating the service of an employee is always there. If the petitioners have no work and do not to intend reinstate the petitioner, all that can be done is that instead of first reinstating and then giving him a months notice or a months salary in lieu of the notice, the petioners can give Respondent No.2, Vishnudeo Prasad, one months notice pay with all back wages instead of reinstating him, as ordered by the Labour court. 12. In the result, this application is dismissed, with the above observations. As there is no appearance on behalf of Respondent No.2, there will be no order as to costs,