1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7493 OF 2008 Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Kamgar ..Petitioner. Vs. Yeshwant Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited ..Respondent. .... Mr. P.M. Patel for the Petitioner. Mr. Kiran S. Bapat with Mr. T.R. Yadav i/b Mr. Avinash H. Fatangare for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 17th November, 2008. P.C. : The Industrial Court has granted permission to the Respondent to convert an appeal under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 into a revision. The exercise of the jurisdiction by the Industrial Court would not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Satara District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Narayan Appaji Chavan1 Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Pratap (as the Learned Judge then was) held that such a course of action can be resorted to in the interest of justice. In that case, undoubtedly 1 1983(47) FLR 218. 2 permission to do so was granted by this Court. Be that as it may, this is not a fit case to warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226. It was urged that the appeal though numbered as such was beyond time and there was an application for condonation of delay and that unless the delay was condoned, the appeal could not have been heard on merits. Admittedly, there is no limitation prescribed for a revision under the Act. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court permitting the Appellant before it to convert the appeal against the interlocutory order into a revision application does not warrant interference. The Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. *****