MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15th December, 2006 passed by the learned single judge. The contention raised before us is that the learned single judge had no power and jurisdiction to stay the passing of the final award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court-II, New Delhi. On going through the records we find that the respondent bank at one stage had filed an appeal being LPA No. 33/2007,being aggrievd by the said order dated 15th December, 2006 whereby a direction was issued by the learned single judge for payment of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the appellant herein. The bank was also aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge staying proceedings before the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court as according to the bank the appellant is not a ?workman?. We did not entertain the appeal at that stage and had disposed of the appeal with certain directions that the learned Single Judge should consider the case of the respondent bank preferably on the next date. It was also observed by us that it shall also be open to the appellant (respondent herein) to renew his prayer for stay of proceedings before the learned Central government Industrial Tribunal and if the said prayer is made, the matter can be reconsidered by the learned Single Judge. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank that the matter is now listed for consideration of the writ petition on 10th september, 2007. At this stage counsel appearing for the appellant states that the appellant has not filed his counter affidavit and it cannot be said the writ petition is ready for hearing. If the counter affidavit is not filed by the appellant, it is for the appellant to consider as to whether or not they are willing to file a counter affidavit. The hearing of the writ petition cannot be delayed in view of the order passed by us on 25th January, 2007. We are also of the considered opinion that since the very basis of making the reference is challenged in the writ petition filed by the bank, the same is required to be considered with urgency and the matter has to be disposed of as early as possible. We are also of the considered opinion that since the very basis of making the reference is challenged in the writ petition filed by the bank, the same is required to be considered with urgency and the matter has to be disposed of as early as possible. We are also of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single Judge for continuation of the proceedings before the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II and that final award shall not be passed would continue to operate till the writ petition is heard and dispose of by the learned single judge. In terms of the aforesaid order, the appeal stands disposed of.