1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4068 OF 2009 (Chief Officer, M.C., Mangrulpir vs. Rajaram T. Kajale & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 10, 2009. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No. 3 to 5. The policy to give preferential employment to dependents of retired Class IV employees is not in dispute. As per that policy, by impugned judgment, the learned Member of Industrial Court has directed the petitioner – employer to provide employment to present respondent No.2. Shri Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that the employment cannot be provided as no posts are available. He is inviting attention to the Etablishment schedule prepared on 09.06.2006 in this respect. Shri Patil, learned counsel is disputing this position. He states that no such schedule was produced before the Industrial Court and the employer has also not pointed out any waiting list to show that persons having similar claim, since prior to the demand of 2 present Respondent No.2, are still waiting in queue. He contends that when this was not the defence, the direction by the Industrial Court to provide employment forthwith cannot be interfered with. The learned AGP appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 states that the Industrial Court should have considered the Establishment schedule and the vacancy position. It was the duty of the petitioner to place Establishment schedule and waiting list, if any, on record to show that dependents of employees who have retired prior to Respondent No. 1 are still waiting for their turn to mature. Unfortunately, that has not been done and that is not the defence in present writ petition. In these circumstances, I do not find any substance in the petition. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is a Municipal Council, the petitioner – Municipal Council is permitted to serve waiting list of similarly situated candidates who are waiting for grant of employment with it on such ground. The waiting list be supplied to Respondent No.2 by 16th December 2009. It will be open to Respondent No.2 to point out that the petitioner has superseded his claim by providing employment to dependents of employees who have retired later on and thus point out to Contempt Court violation of the direction of Industrial Court. Respondent No.2 can raise objection to such list by 25.12.2009 by giving advance copy thereof to the petitioner. 3 With these directions, writ petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.