213 KAMALJIT NARANG THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UT. CHANDIGARH CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. submits that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of wages for the period 01.10.1994 to 28.02.1995 was declined by the Labour Court that no such application is Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 2. petition may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further but liberty be given to the petiti under the 1947 Act or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to redress grievance. 3. 4. 29-07-2025 Sapna Goyal NOTE: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14479 Date of Decision : 29 KAMALJIT NARANG VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UT. CHANDIGARH AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Jasvinder Singh Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of wages for the period 01.10.1994 to 28.02.1995 was declined by the Labour Court that no such application is maintainable un Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “1947 Act”) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further liberty be given to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy either under the 1947 Act or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to redress grievance. Ordered accordingly. Pending application, if any, also stand 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 14479-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision : 29-07-2025 ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UT. ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Jasvinder Singh Yadav, Advocate for Advocate HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) ter arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of wages for the period 01.10.1994 to 28.02.1995 was declined by the Labour Court on the ground maintainable under Section 33-C(2) of the (for short “1947 Act”). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further oner to avail appropriate remedy either under the 1947 Act or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to redress , if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE : YES NO THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, UT. ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI ter arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner for the grant of wages for the period on the ground (2) of the present petition may kindly be disposed of as having been not pressed any further oner to avail appropriate remedy either under the 1947 Act or under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, to redress his SETHI) SAPNA GOYAL 2025.07.30 11:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document