IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) No. ‘g§ of 2011 /, PETITIONER Chief Execution Officer Cum Whole Time 5 RESPONDENT ..... VINOD KUMAR SHARMA Technical Off1cer Q.No. 398 Type B Sector 3, BALCO Township KORBA WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Director, BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO.’ ~ LTD., BALCO, KORBA (CG) VERSUS /' 1. \i/V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 138 OF 2011 Petitioner Chief Execution Officer cum Whole Time Director § Versus Responden‘ Vinod Kumar Sharma (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, 3. Present :— Shri P.S. Koshy and Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocates for the petitioner. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Ms. Ritu Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER ORAL (Passed on this 12‘ day of January, 2011 ) 1. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Industrial Court, Bench at Bilaspur without examining the fact asto whether an application under Section 64-A of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 is directly maintainable before the Industrial Tribunal in respect of the dispute with regard to date of retirement, has passed interim relief. ii 2. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner submits that in case of dispute with regard to the age of retirement, it is well settled that the stay is not normally granted as if the employee succeeds he may be compensated for the years lost on account of earlier 1g retirement. On the other hand, Dr. Shukla, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent employee submits that there is no dispute that the respondent is to be retired on superannuation at the age of 60 years and the petitioner is directed to retire. Be that as it may, since the matter is listed for hearing on 21/01/2011 before the Industrial Court, thus no interference of this Court is / Ci? warranted at this stage‘ The Industrial Court is directed to decide the matter as early as possible preferably on the next date of hearing having regard to the above-stated objections raised by the petitioner. Needless to say that the respondent will not seek any adjustment on the next date of hearing as submitted by Dr. Shukla. It is made clear that the observation of the Industrial Court at the stage of granting interim relief is not correct. Even at the stage of grant of interim relief, the well settled principles of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court have to be seen before passing the order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of h Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun