IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18284 of 2010 Atul Shorewala Vs. State of Haryana & others Present: Mr.Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Writ apparently does not seem to be appropriate remedy against the order through which the petitioner has been summoned for not adhering to the compromise reached between the parties. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the workman was an employer of the contractor for which the petitioner has no responsibility. He, thus, cannot be taken as an occupier. Such an issue cannot be gone into by the writ court. More appropriately, all such pleas are required to be taken before the trial Court, which has summoned the petitioner. Let the petitioner raise all these issues before the trial Court, which shall consider the same in accordance with law. No case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. October 07, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE