: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.482 OF 2009 Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Employees Union & Anr....Respondents Mr.P.K. Rele, Senior Counsel with Mrs.N.R. Patankar i/b Mr.Piyush Shah for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. The impugned order warrants no interference. The nature of the proceedings before the revisional authority are limited to the question of interim reliefs. Indeed while considering whether the revision ought to be allowed or not, it is always open to the revisional authority to consider atleast prima-facie the effect of the submission regarding jurisdiction. That by itself would not however, warrant setting aside the impugned order. 2. The impugned order wrongly records that the question of jurisdiction has been raised suddenly. Indeed the application had already been made before the Labour Court. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner in the Labour Court the question of : 2 : jurisdiction has been pleaded. That however would not alter the matter. 3. The impugned order does not prevent the Petitioner from having the preliminary issue decided by the Industrial Court. If such an application is made the mere pendency of the revision will not prevent the Industrial Court from deciding the preliminary issue. Further as stated earlier, even while opposing the revision, it is always open to the Petitioner to urge the question of jurisdiction for the limited purpose of deciding whether interim reliefs ought to be granted or not. 4. With the above clarification, the Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.