Honble MADAN, J.–Since both the aforesaid two writ petitions involve identical questions of law for consideration of this court and the relief sought for by the petitioners against the respondents is also similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. (2). For the sake of convenience and at the cost of avoidingrepetition, I deem it appropriate to refer to the facts in the matter of Govind Ram vs. Rajasthan State Electricity Board and others : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1904/94 treating the same as the main case. In both the writ petitions the question at issue also pertains to the arbitration Award passed between the management of Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short `R.S.E.B.) and its workmen under Section10-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). (3). Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the writ petition in the matter of Govind Ram vs. R.S.E.B. and others are that the petitioner was appointed in service of the respondent-board on 8.2.1979 as a work charged employee viz. carpenter which is a skilled job. He was initially appointed in the office of Asstt. Engineer B. Zone II,City Division-II, Jaipur but subsequently on 5.8.1982 his services stood transferred to the office of the Asstt. Engineer B Zone III, City Division II of the respondent-Board as Carpenter. (4). It has further been contended by the petitioner that in pursuance of the agreement dated 19.12.1977 an arbitration was held between the management ofR.S.E.B. and its workmen under Section 10 B of the Industrial Dispute (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1958 in pursuance of which an award was passed by the learned Arbitrator on 15.6.1979. It was agreed between the parties that the decision of the Arbitrator shall be binding on them and in case the Arbitrators are divided in their opinion, they shall appoint another person as Umpire whose Award shall be bindingon the parties. The matters in dispute in terms of reference to the learned Arbitrators are reproduced herein below :- ``To decide the principles of regulate fixation/adjustment/promotion of all technical workmen of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board in respect to the following periods :– (i) From 1.4.1968 to 31.3.1977 who have completed a continuous service of 2 years or more by 31.3.1977. (ii) In respect of all the technical workmen from 1.4.1977 and onwards. (ii) In respect of all the technical workmen from 1.4.1977 and onwards. (2) To decide/frame the procedure/regulation for recruitment and promotion of all technical workmen to come into force with effect from 1st April, 1977. popularly known as `Singh-Sancheti Award. Since earlier to it, there was no regulated procedure in the respondent - Board for proper fixation of the workmen and in-fact they were required to perform duties in different skilled grades thoughtheir designations were entirely different, with a view to over-come this situation and also with a view to streamline the service conditions of the workmen, the matter was submitted for arbitration and the aforesaid award came to be passed on 15.6.1979 on the industrial dispute between the respondent-Board and its workmen. For the sake of ready reference and convenience I deem it appropriateto refer only to the relevant paras 14, 15 and 16 of the aforesaid award in which the question at issue which has been raised in the aforesaid two writ petitions, has been discussed by the learned Arbitrators with a direction to the respondent-Board to make proper fixation/adjustment of such workmen on the posts and in the pay scale according to their actual work. (5). In the agreement, dated 26.1.1978 executed between the Board and Prantiya Vidhyut Mandal Majdoor Federation it has been provided at clause B-6 in respect to creation of posts with effect from 1st April, 1968 and fixation/adjustment/promotion against such posts and that no further recruitment from open market should be made even on quasi-permanent basis till the fixation/adjustment/ promotion on the posts created or to be created from 1st January, 1964, 1st October, 1965 and 1st April, 1968 is completed. Since the respondent-Board had made recruitment of persons not only in unskilled and semi-skilled categories of posts but even on the posts having skilled and supervisory classification, it has become necessary to refer the said dispute to arbitration and in pursuance of which (earlier award dated 31.5.1978 was passed) and as per clause 13 of the aforesaid award it was held that the workmen falling in the above category have to be fixed by the respondent-Board in the regular pay scale and for that the supernumerary postshave to be created for each individual workman with a view to give them regular pay scale in accordance with the stipulations made in clause 14 of the said Award dated 31.5.1978 provided the services rendered by such workmen are continuous in his line/trade. The aforesaid findings of the learned Arbitrators in the Award dated 31st May, 1978 were subsequently affirmed by the Arbitrators in the arbitration awarddated 15.6.1979. Since the rules governing the fixation have already been prescribed by the respondent-Board, the learned Arbitrators opined that no disparity should be caused and some system/principles regulating the fixation/promotion should be adopted by the Board as that would ensure uniformity and consistency. It was further opined by the learned Arbitrators that for carrying out fixation/promo-tion against the said posts as created w.e.f. 1st April, 1968 and onwards excluding the posts created for fixation corresponding to workload on 31st March, 1968 is to be carried out by the fixation committees as stated in Schedule `A of Appendix III unless specifically provided otherwise or curtailed in any of the memorandum of settlement/agreements already executed between the Board and the Majdoor Fede-ration for the time periods referred to above. In para 16 of the aforesaid award dated 15.6.1979 it has been further provided that fixation and promotion should be in regular line/trade in which continuous service has been rendered and not essentially on the basis of the designation, which erroneously or otherwise might have been given. It would be in fitness of things that in making fixation/promotion thisis given due importance from the Award. (6). It would be in fitness of things that in making fixation/promotion thisis given due importance from the Award. (6). It will not be out of place to mention in this context that on the recommendations of the fixation committee in terms of para 15 of the Arbitration Award dated 15.6.1979 and in exercise of powers conferred vide order dated 17.6.1976, a number of workmen with different designations in skilled/semi-skilled categorywere appointed on daily rated basis in different specialities indicated against their respective names in the Boards pay scale 370-570 with effect from the date shown against their respective names and for this purpose the supernumerary post of skilled categories as per designations assigned to them were created. This fact is borne out from the Boards order dated 1.8.1983 (Ann.9). (7). During the course of hearing Shri P.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended at the bar that the terms of both the aforesaid Awards are binding on the respondent-Board and its workmen and since the respondent-Board was specifically directed by the learned Arbitrators to make proper fixation/adjustments of the workmen covered by the Award on proper postand in the pay scales according to their actual work. The terms of the aforesaid award are binding on the respondent-Board and there is no justification for the Board to make departure from the same. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the Boards letter, dated 20.6.1984 whereby the Board had recommended payment of higherwages to the workmen performing skilled jobs in different specialities of urgent nature such as construction and maintenance works assigned to the City Division II of Jaipur City. The names of the petitioners have been indicated at serial numbers 6 and 7 in the Boards order, dated 20.6.1984 and the dates of their respective appointments have been indicated in the second column as 1.6.1978 and 8.2.1979 respectively. In the column indicating nature of job performing, both the said petitioners have been indicated as Carpenters having been fixed up in maintenance in Zone I and A-II respectively as skilled workers in scale No.3 after completion of two years of service under the provisions of Arbitration Award. It was further recommended by the respondent-Board vide its order, dated 20.6.1984 (Annx.8) to allow petitioners wages at par with other workers performing similar nature of duties of the same Zone. It was further recommended by the respondent-Board vide its order, dated 20.6.1984 (Annx.8) to allow petitioners wages at par with other workers performing similar nature of duties of the same Zone. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of the above, even after persistent recommendations of the concerned officials of the respondent-Board a number of workmen including thepetitioners were not given the due benefits pursuant to the Awards and, therefore, they were left with no option but to take recourse to legal remedies. One such workman was Anwar Beg who had earlier filed a writ petition in this court vide S.B.C.W.P. No. 995/85 which was decided by learned single Judge of this court on 6.5.1992. The said petitioner was working as a Painter but was designated as work-charged helper. As per directions in the Award, he should have been given the post of Painter (Artisan) and fixed in proper pay scale. Learned Single Judge of this court while allowing the said writ petition directed that the petitioner is entitled to have his pay fixed in the scale of Painter grade II from the due date with a further direction to the respondent-Board to issue appropriate order for pay fixation of thepetitioner and also to give him all consequential benefits. The respondent-Board preferred a Special Appeal No. 481/92 against the order of learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this court vide order, dated 26.10.1993. (8). In this regard I am of the opinion that having perused the order, dated16.5.1992 of the learned Single Judge in the matter of Anwar Bag vs. R.S.E.B. (supra) and the order dated 26.10.1993 passed by learned Division Bench of this court, are binding on the respondent-Board and prima-facie I am of the opinion that the ratio of the aforesaid orders are binding on the respondent-Board and I find no justification to take contrary view of the matter. My observations in this regard are also for-tified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of South Indian Bank vs. Chacko (2) wherein the Apex Court while deciding the appeal arising out of a claim petition under Section 33(c)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the provisions of the Award fixing wage scales and Dearness Allowance even after termination, in terms of contract of service, shall be binding on the parties unlessit is displaced by another contract and the benefit under the Award terminated under Section 19(6) of the Act could be claimed on the basis of the provisions of such Award which operate as a contract between the parties even after its termination. It was further held by the Apex Court that so long as the Award remains in operation and is binding on the parties, on breach of any of its terms, the party willbe liable to penalty and imprisonment under Section 29 of the said Act. (9). Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court to the instant writ petitions, I am of the opinion that the terms of the aforesaid Awards in pursuance of the agreement, dated 19.12.1977 arrived at between the R.S.E.B. and its workmen, was to continue to govern the relations between the parties and inthe event of any dispute arising between te two, i.e. respondent Board and the work-workmen, they shall continue to be governed by the terms of the aforesaid contract as well as the terms of the aforesaid Awards till it is displaced by another contract or Award and the obligations under the Award continue to be binding on the parties so long as the same remain in force. (10). It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the word `termination as used in Section 19 of the Act, has been used in a very limited sense i.e., after the expiry of the term of operation of the Award, any party can give notice to the other of his intention to terminate the Award and by this notice he gets a right to ask for re-settlement of the terms and conditions of the same but it does not mean that the Award has extinguished or has ceased to be inforce. I am in full agreement with the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the terms of the aforesaid Award dated 15.6.1979 between the respondent-Board and its workmen continued to be binding on the parties and the obligations enjoined under the same remain enforcible unless replaced by a new settlement or award. My observations are also fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of L.I.C. vs. D.J. Bahadur (3) wherein similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. In that case on account of various settlement arrived at between the L.I.C. and its employees regar-ding payment of Bonus, conditions of service such as revised pay scales, methods of their pay fixation, dearness allowance and other allowances, disputes had arisen between the parties. An award was finally passed on the basis of settlement arrived at between the parties. It was held by the Apex Court that the settlement between the parties or an award under the Act does not cease to be operative merely beca-use of the notice issued under Section 19(2) of the Act, since the notice merely indicates the intention to terminate the settlement or award and even if it ceases to be operative qua-settlement or the award, it continues to be a contract unless replaced by another contract. It was further held that once the earlier contract is extinguished and fresh conditions of service are created by the award or the settle-ment, the inevitable consequences is that even though the period of operation and the span of binding force expires on the notice to terminate the contract being given, the said contract continues to govern the relations between the parties until a new agreement by way of settlement or statutory contract by the force of an award takes its place. (11). The respondents on being noticed by this court have filed their reply opposing the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground inter-alia that the petitioners suffer from under laches because the repeated representations by the petitioners cannot justify the claim of the petitioners if the same have been preferred after inordinate delay of more than two decades. (11). The respondents on being noticed by this court have filed their reply opposing the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground inter-alia that the petitioners suffer from under laches because the repeated representations by the petitioners cannot justify the claim of the petitioners if the same have been preferred after inordinate delay of more than two decades. The respondents have fur-ther contended that since the writ petitions are not maintainable, the question of the petitioners being conferred with any benefits pursuant to the arbitration Award, does not arise, since the petitioners have failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of the relevant provisions under the Act and it was not opened to them to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (12). On merits the respondents have opposed the maintainability of the writ petitions on the grounds that since the arbitration award was passed regarding certain disputes raised by the workers union and in view of the said award the petitioners were given the benefit benefit of pay-scales on the completion of two years period of service and since the same was accepted by the petitioner withoutany protest, the writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief on the principle of estoppel and laches. The respondents have further contended that if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the non-execution of the Award, they should have invoked the provisions of the Act and since they have failed to do so, they are not entitled to any relief regarding pay fixation withoutgiving any justification for the delay and laches. (13). I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, examined the relevant documents on the record as well as the terms of the Awards referred to above and also the legal position on the subject. (14). Prima facie I am of the opinion that since the controversy between theparties stands well concluded by the Arbitration Award, dated 15.6.1979 on the industrial dispute between the R.S.E.B. and its workmen, the terms of the said award to which the R.S.E.B. was a consenting party, are fully binding on the respondent-Board as well as the workmen and it is not open to the respondent-Board to deviate or depart from the same on being non- suited from its terms and conditions as stipulated in the said Award. I am further of the view that it was the duty enjoined upon the respondent-Board to have extended the benefit of the said Award not only to the petitioners but also to its other workmen. I am further of the opinion that there is obviuos fallacy in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-Board, since it is not open to the respondent-Board, to escaped from the obligations under the aforesaid Award which continues to be in force unless replace by a new contract or an award and the terms and conditions of the same shall continue to be binding on the respondent-Board. The law is wellsettled on the subject and keeping in view the observations of the Apex Court in the aforesaid matters as well as the judgment of this court, I find no reason or justification to take contrary view of the matter. (15). As a result of the above discussion, the aforesaid two writ petitions are allowed. A mandamus is accordingly issued directing the respondent-Board to fixthe petitioner Govind Ram in the pay- scale of Carpenter with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 8.2.1981/1.4.1981 and the petitioner Naval Kishore w.e.f. 1.4.1981. The respondent-Board is further directed to issue appropriate order for pay fixation of the petitioners accordingly within six weeks of the submission of the certified copy of this order, in accordance with the rules. The parties are directed to beartheir own costs.