JUDGMENT : B.N. Agrawal & I.P. Singh, JJ.- This application has been filed for quashing the ORDER :dated 19.9.1988 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, in B.S.E. Case no. 4/80 whereby preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the application filed before Labour Court raised by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Short facts are that respondent no.3 Surendra Prasad Singh was appointed as Cashier in State Bank of India temporarily and his service was terminated on 9.9.1974, but he was reinstated in service on 23.1.1979. Subsequently, his service was again terminated by notice dated 2.1.1980. Respondent no. 3 thereafter made an application under section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before statutory authority constituted thereunder in the year 1980 which gave rise to B.S.E. Case no. 4/80 assailing his aforesaid termination by the Bank. 3. In the said case, after service of notice, the Bank appeared and raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the case in view of the fact that during pendency of the aforesaid petition under section 26(2) of the Act on 13.8.1985, a notification was issued under section 4(2) of the Act amending the schedule to the Act which resulted in excluding all branches of public sector banks situated in the State of Bihar from the purview of all provisions of the Act. The Labour Court by its ORDER :dated 21.8.1987 rejected the petition and held that the application was maintainable as in its opinion the notification was not retrospective but prospective. Against the said ORDER :, the petitioner moved this Court by filing a writ• application bearing C.W.J.C. No. 5093 of 1987 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 7.1.1988. 4. Thereafter on 12.9.1988 another petition was filed before the Labour Court on behalf of the Bank on the same very ground which has been rejected by ORDER :dated 19.9.1988, contained in Annexure-1 holding that the notification dated 13.8.1985 was prospective; as such, the same will not affect the present case which was pending before the Labour Court from before the issuance of the said notification. Hence, this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this application submitted that the notification dated 13.8.1985 was applicable even with regard to pending cases and the same was retrospective. Hence, this writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this application submitted that the notification dated 13.8.1985 was applicable even with regard to pending cases and the same was retrospective. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 contended that the said notification is prospective and shall not affect continuance of the proceeding before the Labour Court. We find that the point raised in this case is concluded by a decision of the apex Court in Arka Bikas Chakravorty vs. State Bank of India and others, (1997) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 417. In the said case, an application under section 26(2) of the Act was filed in the year 1977 and the same was pending on the date when the notification was issued on 13.8.1985. The Labour Court after adjudication allowed the application. Thereafter, on behalf of the State Bank of India a writ application was filed in this Court which was dismissed, but when letters patent appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner, the same was allowed and the ORDER :passed by Labour Court was set aside. Against the said ORDER :, when the matter was taken to the apex Court, the appeal was dismissed and it was laid down categorically that the said notification was retrospective, was applicable even in relation to cases under section 26(2) of the Act which were pending from before its issuance and from the date of issuance of the notification, the provisions of the Act ceased to apply to employees of the State Bank of India situated within the State of Bihar. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ application, quash the ORDER :contained in Annexure-1 and hold that the impugned petition filed under section 26(2) of the Act before Labour Court by respondent no.3 was not maintainable. In the circumstances, we direct that parties shall bear their own costs.