JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the refusal to grant of interim order vide, order dated 15.02.2017, passed in W.P. (L) No. 428 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was serving as Class-IV employee from 01.10.1979 and an industrial dispute was raised under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Dhanbad as Reference No. 1 of 2001, which was allowed by the Tribunal by award dated 02.12.2008 and regularization order was passed and there was also an order for inclusion of the name of the respondent in the Provident Fund Scheme. 3. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the award dated 02.02.2008, passed in Reference No. 1 of 2001, a writ petition was preferred by the management of this appellant being W.P. (L) No. 428 of 2011, which was admitted by the learned Single Judge, but the stay was refused and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred for getting stay against the operation, implementation and execution of the award dated 02.12.2008, passed in Reference No. 1 of 2001 as well as for getting stay against the part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 428 of 2011. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal for grant of the stay against the operation, implementation and execution of the award dated 02.12.2008, passed in Reference No. 1 of 2001, mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) Writ Petition preferred by this appellant has already been admitted and the same is pending before the learned Single Judge. (ii) The respondent was working as Class-IV employee from 01.10.1979 till he retired on 30.09.2015 and an industrial dispute was raised and the reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act being Reference No. 1 of 2001 and an award was passed in favour of the respondent dated 02.12.2008, whereby regularization order was passed and this appellant/management was directed to include the name of the respondent in the Provident Fund Scheme. (iii) It appears that as respondent has worked from 01.10.1979 till he retired on 30.09.2015 as Class-IV employee, there is no prima-facie case in favour of this appellant for getting stay against the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal dated 02.12.2008. Moreover, balance of convenience is also not in favour of this appellant and no irreparable loss will be caused to this appellant, if stay, as prayed for, is not granted. Payment to the respondent will be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 428 of 2011 and the respondent will file an undertaking to that effect as mentioned in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It appears that all possible care have been taken by the learned Single Judge. (iv) It appears that respondent was working as Sweeper (Furrash) and also he was narrated as Water Boy and Messenger in the internal page no. 31 of the award dated 02.12.2008. Thus, the work of the respondent was directly connected with the right to live of the thirsty persons of the management-bank. Very crucial work was performed by the respondent for 36 years of his service with this appellant/management-bank. 5. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge by rejecting the prayer for stay of the award dated 02.12.2008, passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 1 of 2001. Even otherwise also, the amount involved in this case is very meager, hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in rejecting the prayer for stay of the award dated 02.12.2008, hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 6. In view of the order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal and I.A. No. 5155 of 2017 is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.