217 THE JIND COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR. CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. 2. submits that though, the backwages, the service and he ha of the backwages for the period of two years. 3. can be safely presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition. 4. 5. 20-03-2025 Sapna Goyal IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AT CHANDIGARH CWP-17465 Date of Decision : 20 THE JIND COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI None for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate Mr. Tarun, Advocate, Mr. A.K Sihmar, Advocates for respondent No.2. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that though, the execution of the award was stayed only qua the backwages, the respondent No.2-employee had already been reinstated in service and he has already retired as of now and the only question remains is of the backwages for the period of two years. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner hence can be safely presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present writ petition. Dismissed for non-prosecution. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of 2025 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) NOTE: Whether speaking Whether reportable: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 17465-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20-03-2025 THE JIND COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., JIND ........Petitioner VERSUS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, PANIPAT AND ANR. ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Advocate with HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 execution of the award was stayed only qua the employee had already been reinstated in already retired as of now and the only question remains is of the backwages for the period of two years. one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner hence can be safely presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the prosecution. if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 execution of the award was stayed only qua the employee had already been reinstated in already retired as of now and the only question remains is one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner hence, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) SAPNA GOYAL 2025.03.21 11:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document