mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHJ gxLAspuR Wit. a.) No.6668/2oo7 Virendra Singh Naikadi, s/o iats Shm‘ Bakam Singh agCd 45 years, MPSRTC, Permanent Resident of VIH—Tudila, EX. Conductor, - The Pargana Gohad, P. S. Malanpaur, District Bhind (MP), present address at 12,’661, Prem Nagar SikolaBhata, Durg. Versus PETYI‘IONER REsPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Managing Director, :Chhattisgarh Infras‘mlcture, Development Corporation {CIDC} , G. E. Road, Near Mantralaya, Raipur Malaging Director, 2. The Chhattisgarh Infrastxucture Deveiopment Comoration(CI DC) , G.E.Road, Near Mailtralaya, Raipur 3. The Divisional Maxiager(Transport) Infrastructure Chhattisgarh Development Corporation, (CIDC), Bilaspur ofnce,Bi1aspur WRIT PETITION UNDER ART!CLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIGN OF INDIA Appearance: Shn' B.P.Rao, Counsel for'the petitioner. $1111 Ajay Dwiveéii, Panel Lawyer for the State on advance copy. oRAL (mom (1.1112007; ' SUNIL KUMAR SENHA, J. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that there is already an order in favour of the petitioner, which was passed in W,P.No.442 of 1990 on 28th February, 2007 and as far as mem‘ts of the case are concerned, the petitioner is satisfied with the earlier order. He submits that grievance of the petitioner is that by the earlier order of this Court, an order passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal No. 16/MPIR Act/86 was set aside, as an ailect of which, the order ’ ”@a 3m! a! ’Em 2 W.P.No(L).6é68/2007 passed by ths Labour Court came into .force. But even after that, the ordsr has not been complied with. I do not deem it proper to entertain the Wlit petition for this grievance only. When the matter has been fmaHy adjudicated by this Court, there is no question of entertaining the subsequent writ petition. The remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere to iiie appropriate appiication for execution ofthe order concerned. ‘ With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands finally disposed of. \ Sdl- t Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge A\‘; evr sunité