-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.339 OF 2007 In WRIT PETITION NO.4661 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.460 OF 2007 In LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.339 OF 2007 Ace Glass Containers Ltd. (Formerly known as Owens Brockway Ltd.) : Appellant (Orig.Petitioner) V/s. Shri Bhimrao Sadashiv Patil & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Respondents) ... Mr.D.J.Bhanage for the appellant. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for the respondents. ... CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.& S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 25, 2008. P.C. 1. The legality and correctness of the order dated 18.9.2007 passed by the learned single Judge is questioned -: 2 :- in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Vide order dated 9.3.2007, the Industrial Court at Pune allowed the application for condonation of delay. Proceedings before the Industrial Court were directed against the order passed by the Labour Court in filing the Revision Application before the Industrial Court. There was a delay of more than two years, for condonation of which the application was filed by the workmen. The parties were permitted to lead evidence whereafter the delay was condoned and the revisions were entertained. Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Court condoning the delay, Writ Petition No.4661 of 2007 was filed by the management which, as noticed, was dismissed by the learned single Judge by order dated 18.9.2007. The learned single Judge observed, while relying upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy [(1998) 7 SCC 123] that the Industrial Court had exercised its discretion which was not on wholly untenable ground or arbitrary or perverse. Thus, the learned Judge declined to interfere. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that in evidence, the workman had admitted that he had not approached the company after his termination, but in the application he has averred that he -: 3 :- had approached the company and the matter was pending for settlement. Therefore, he has not approached the Court. We hardly see any merit in this contradiction inasmuch as the Industrial Court in its order has specifically noticed that the counsel Mr.Pund had specifically submitted on behalf of the workmen that he was negotiating with the company as the counsel. 4. In these circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. In view of the dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal, Civil Application No.460 of 2007 does not survive and the same stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, J.