1 20 caw 744.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.744 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1265 OF 2005 Shri Rama Yamaji Kamble ..Applicant. Vs. The Executive Engineer ..Respondent. Mr. Ameya Tamhane for applicant. Mr. P.G.Sawant, AGP ‘B’ Panel for respondent. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 28th April, 2011. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the applicant. 2 This application is preferred by original respondent- employee seeking direction to the respondent-original petitioner for providing a seniority list maintained by them under CRT for the period 2003 to 2011. It is the case of the applicant that in Reference (IDA) No.55 of 2000, the Labour Court by its order dated 20th January, 2003 directed respondent to reinstate the applicant in employment with continuity but without any back wages strictly according to his seniority list as and when work is available basis. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 2 20 caw 744.11.doc applicant submits that the applicant was working on the basis of as and when work was available with the respondent. He submits that as a senior most person in the said list, the respondent failed to comply with the order passed by the Labour Court and therefore, he requires a copy of the seniority list maintained by respondent under CRT for the year 2003 to 2011. 3 The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the present civil application. They filed affidavit in reply dated 7th April, 2011 of Sunita Anantrao Patil, Assistant Engineer Grade-I, P.W.D., Sub Division Barshi, District Solapur. 4 The learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent submits that the impugned order dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court was stayed by this court by an order dated 9th January, 2006 and therefore, there is no question of providing any work to the applicant. In any case, the respondent in their affidavit in reply in paragraph no.4 categorically stated that they are maintaining waiting list under CRT. 3 20 caw 744.11.doc 5 Whether the applicant is entitled to the work as per the order passed by the Labour Court and he is entitled to compensation can be decided at the time of final hearing of the petition. I do not find any reason as to why the applicant is not entitled to the waiting list under CRT. 6 Considering these facts and submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, the respondent-original petitioners are directed to provide a copy of the waiting list maintained by them under CRT for the period from 2003 to 2010 to the applicant at his costs. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants states that they are ready and willing to bear the costs. Respondent is directed to comply with these directions within four weeks from today on payment of usual charges. 7 Civil Application is disposed of accordingly. 8 For other relief petitioner is granted liberty to take out appropriate proceeding. (K.K.Tated, J.)