Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. These two writ applications, with the consent of the parties, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C. W. J. C. No.366 of 1981 an award dated 25-9-1980 passed by the respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure 4 is under challenge whereas in c. W. J. C. No.98, of 1981 an award dated 17-1-1981 passed by respondent no.2 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application is under challenge. 3. Both these writ applications arise out of a references made by the State government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Sec.10 (1) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 whereby and whereunder a reference was made 1 or adjudication of the respondent No.2 as to whether the orders of retrenchment/dismissal passed as against the concerned workmen of the petitioner-company were legal and valid or not. 4. By a considered award the respondent No.2 after taking into consideration all relevant facts came to the conclusion that the impugned orders of dismissal retrenchment were bad in law and directed by the said awards that the concern workmen reinstated in services with full back wages. 5. Mr. T. K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has raised a very short question. He submitted that the undertaking of the petitioners-company had been taken over by the State of Bihar with effect from 17th July, 1975, by reason of the provisions at engrafted in Bihar Electricity Supply undertaking (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1975 which was latter on repealed and replaced an Act of the Legislature viz. , Bihar Act 5 of 1979. He submitted that the undertaking of the petitioners-company had been taken over by the State of Bihar with effect from 17th July, 1975, by reason of the provisions at engrafted in Bihar Electricity Supply undertaking (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1975 which was latter on repealed and replaced an Act of the Legislature viz. , Bihar Act 5 of 1979. He, therefore, submitted that as there is no existing industry belonging to the petitioner where the concerned workmen were employecd, the award has become vitiated and as the same cannot be enforced No. The relegent provision of the Ordinance are as follows :- "section 7 : Vesting of undertaking.-All the liabilities and obligations, other than those vesting in the State Government under sub-sections (1) and (3) shall continue to be the liabilities and obligations of the licensee, after the vesting date explanation :- All liabilities and obligations in respect of staff, taxes including Income tax and wealth tax, provident fund, gratuity employees State Insurance, industrial disputes and all other matters, upto and including the vesting, shall continue to be the liabilities and obligations of the licensee after the vesting date. Sec.11 : Provision regarding existing staff: Every person who is a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , and has been immediately before the vesting date, in the employment of the licensee, shall become on and from the vesting date, an employee of the State Government or the Board, as the case may be, shall hold office or service on the same terms and conditions and with the same right to pension, gratuity and other matters as would have been admissible to him if the undertaking and no been transferred to and vested in the State Government of the Board, as the case may be, and continue to do so unless and untill his employment under the State Government or the Board, as the case may be, is terminated or until his remuneration, terms and conditions of employment are duly altered by the State Government of the Board as the case may be. " 6 From the perusal of the aforementioned provision it is evident that those employees who were illegally retrenched or whose services were illegally terminated and in whose favour the award have been passed would continue to be the workmen in relation to the aforementioned workmen. 7. " 6 From the perusal of the aforementioned provision it is evident that those employees who were illegally retrenched or whose services were illegally terminated and in whose favour the award have been passed would continue to be the workmen in relation to the aforementioned workmen. 7. The rights and previleges of the workmen are clearly saved by reason of Sec.11 of the said Act and in view of the awards as contained in Annexure 4 to the respective writ applications the concerned workmen would be deemed to be the employees of the Board as they had a right to continue in the service ic the undertaking of the petitioner and the aforementioned orders of retrenchment/dismissal which have been held to be illegal, void, abinition one thus nullities. 8. These aspects of the matter is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme court of India in the Workmen V/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. reported in air 1978 SC 979 . 9. In view of the aforementioned auhoritative pronuncement there cannot be any doubt that the award passed in favour of workman here not become citiated. By reason of the aforementioned legislative enactment it is deemed to be jn force. The only impact of the award which has to be taken into consideration while implementing the award is to the extent of the liability of the petitioner so far as the monetary aspect thereof is concerned The Bihar State Electricity or the State of Bihar cannot have any monitary liability till the vesting of the undertaking in view of Sec.7 (5) of the said ordinance reference to hereinbefore. 10. Tn this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these writ applications which are hereby dismissed subject to the aforemertioned observations. Decided accordingly