223 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT BHAWAN SONEPAT KANTA SHARMA AND ANR KANTA SHARMA EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT BHAWAN SONEPAT AND ANR. CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) 1. in the heading are against Department as well as Workmen. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 31 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT BHAWAN SONEPAT VERSUS KANTA SHARMA AND ANR And 2. KANTA SHARMA VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYAT BHAWAN SONEPAT AND ANR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana. For the petitioner-State in CWP No.5159 of 2017 and For the respondents in CWP No.9367 of 2017 Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate For respondent No.1 in CWP No.5159 of 2017 and For the petitioner in CWP No.9367 of *** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) Present set of writ petitions in the heading are against the same award dated 31.08.2016 filed by both the Department as well as Workmen. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 31-07-2025 CWP-5159-2017 (O&M) EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATI RAJ PANCHAYAT ........Petitioner(s) VERSUS ........Respondent(s) CWP-9367-2017 (O&M) ........Petitioner VERSUS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATI RAJ PANCHAYAT ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Saurabh Girdhar, AAG Haryana. in CWP No.5159 of 2017 and For the respondents in CWP No.9367 of 2017. Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate in CWP No.5159 of 2017 and For the petitioner in CWP No.9367 of 2017. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) esent set of writ petitions the details of which are mentioned the same award dated 31.08.2016 filed by both the ........Petitioner(s) ........Respondent(s) ........Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI the details of which are mentioned the same award dated 31.08.2016 filed by both the SAPNA GOYAL 2025.08.02 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-5159-2017 (O&M) and CWP-9637-2017 (O&M) -2- 2. Learned counsel for the Workman submits that the prayer raised was for grant of full backwages, which claim has not been considered by the Labour Court. 3. Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the claim was for setting aside the award dated 31.08.2016 for the grant of reinstatement and 50% of the backwages. 3. Learned counsel for the Workman submits that as the award dated 31.08.2016 (Annexure P-1) has already been implemented qua the reinstatement along with 50% of the backwages hence, now he has instructions not to press his petition especially when, thereafter, the services of the petitioner were again terminated on 24.05.2022 and the petitioner has already availed the remedy for the redressal of the said grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to dispute this fact since the award dated 31.08.2016 has already been implemented. 5. In view of the above as the award already stands implemented as prayed for, the present petitions are disposed of as having been not pressed any further. 6. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 7. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. 31-07-2025 Sapna Goyal (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2025.08.02 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document