IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2010 Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh and another ...Petitioners Versus Hardev Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.S.C. Pathela, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Anjali Khosla, Advocate for respondent No. 1. RANJIT SINGH J. The only submission made to press this writ petition is that the respondent-workman had admitted the period for which he served the petitioner-Corporation. Though the respondent-workman was being paid salary after completion of work, the details of the work may have been produced before the authority concerned but no record whatsoever was produced to substantiate the claim. The submission that the workman had admitted the details of his service in the cross examination too cannot be read in isolation and has to be examined in the light of complete version given by him. It would not be a substitute for authentic proof about the period for which workman had worked. Before the appellate authority, the submission was primarily that the gratuity would not be payable as the Act was not applicable, which plea now is not pressed before me in any manner. In view of this factual position, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE