1 2025:CGHC:47875 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 190 of 2025 1 - Chandrakesh Yadav S/o Shri Bhullan Yadav Aged About 44 Years Occupation- Service (Presently Terminated) Bharat Aluminum Company Limited (Balco), Korba, R/o. Qtr No. 643/4/a, Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Through The Chief Executive Officer ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sanjay Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : none ({Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput}) Order on Board 17/09/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking for following relief (s)- 10.1 Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. 10.2 To direct the respondent No.1 not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for eviction of the company quarter Qtr No.643/4/A, Balco Nagar, Korba, District – Korba (CG), till the decision of the Industrial Disputes case No.11/CGIR Act/24 ‘Chandrakesh Yadav v. Bharat 2 Aluminium Company Ltd. Pending before the respondent No.2. 10.3. To direct the respondent No.2 to decide the Industrial Dispute case No.11/CGIR Act/24 “Chandrakesh Yadav v. Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd. within stipulated period, in the interest of justice. 10.4 That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order in favour of the petitioner as it may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case with cost.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed with respondent No.1 / company on the post of Process Technician on 08/08/2006. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was terminated on 25/07/2023. His termination was challenged by him before the Laour Court, Korba and case bearing No.11/CGIR Act/24 was registered which is pending consideration before the learned Labour Court, Korba. He submits that the respondent is taking coercive measure to evict the petitioner from the house allotted by the respondent. Therefore, till decision of the case pending before the labour Court, Korba, respondent may be restrained from eviction of the petitioner from the allotted house. 4. These submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be acceded to as the petitioner is no more in service with the respondent. Pendency of the case challenging the case of termination would not ipso facto mean that he could occupy the house allotted to him. Therefore, I do not find any good ground for issuance of notice to the respondent. Accordingly, the case is dismissed at the admission stage. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court may be directed to expedite the trial. The prayer appears to be fair and reasonable. Therefore, it is expected that the learned Labour Court shall expedite the trial subject to cooperation by the parties. Sd/- ({Sachin Singh Rajput}) JUDGE Deepti DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Digitally signed by DEEPTI HARIKUMAR Date: 2025.09.22 17:19:04 +0530