211 SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI PRESIDING OFFICER COURT, CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. touch with the petitioner and does not know as to whether, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy even after the expiry of 24 years. Hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of pressed any further with liberty to revive the same in case, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy so as to seek an order on merit. 2. 3. 30-07-2025 Sapna Goyal NOTE: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1585 Date of Decision : 30 SMT. SHAKUNTALA DEVI VERSUS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , GURGAON & ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Brahmjot Singh Nahar, Advocate for respondent No.2. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner submit touch with the petitioner and does not know as to whether, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy even after the expiry of 24 years. Hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of pressed any further with liberty to revive the same in case, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy so as to seek an order on merit. Ordered accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1585-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30-07-2025 ........Petitioner VERSUS , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Advocate Advocate HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) sel for the petitioner submits that he is not in touch with the petitioner and does not know as to whether, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy even after the expiry of 24 years. Hence, the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further with liberty to revive the same in case, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy so as to seek an order on merit. , if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE : YES NO LABOUR ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI that he is not in touch with the petitioner and does not know as to whether, the petitioner is interested in pursuing the present remedy even after the expiry of 24 years. having been not pressed any further with liberty to revive the same in case, the petitioner is (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) SAPNA GOYAL 2025.07.30 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document