CWP-15103 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (242) Satnam Singh The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act CORAM: Present: KULDEEP TIWARI 1. 2. the Court. Even, on the last date of hearing, no one has caused appearance to represent the petitioner. 3. appears no justif 4. not interested in pursuing the instant writ petition anymore. 5. prosecution. September 09 Manpreet 5103-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Satnam Singh Versus The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI None for the petitioner. Mr. Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Harmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL) The instant writ petition is pending since the year 2018. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, today in the Court. Even, on the last date of hearing, no one has caused appearance to represent the petitioner. It is already 3.45 p.m. and Court time is almost over and appears no justification in keeping the instant petition on board, indefinitely. At this stage, this Court can safely presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the instant writ petition anymore. Consequently, the instant writ petition is prosecution. September 09, 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-15103-2018 Date of Decision : 09.09.2025 …Petitioner The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act and others ...Respondents KULDEEP TIWARI Haneesh Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Harmandeep Singh Sullar, Advocate The instant writ petition is pending since the year 2018. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, today in the Court. Even, on the last date of hearing, no one has caused appearance to It is already 3.45 p.m. and Court time is almost over and there ication in keeping the instant petition on board, indefinitely. ourt can safely presume that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the instant writ petition anymore. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want of (KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, today in the Court. Even, on the last date of hearing, no one has caused appearance to there ication in keeping the instant petition on board, indefinitely. ourt can safely presume that the petitioner is dismissed for want of MANPREET SINGH 2025.09.10 19:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment