D. N. Patel - (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.;