M/S. TAMURA ELCOMPONICS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

- 3 -

under the settlement arrived at between the Management and the Employees and further proceeded to issue a recovery certificate in terms of Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directing the recovery of Rs.25,74,810/-.

3. The singular argument canvassed by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant is that though there were several orders by this Court and an order of injunction by the civil Court, the striking workers did not permit the Management to enter the factory premises and thereby the Management was disabled from placing on record before the adjudicating authority such material as would negate the claim of the employees. The learned Senior counsel would take this Court through Annexure-O1 being a letter dated 03.04.2017 whereby the Management has pleaded for 10 days time to submit their reply to the reference taken up for consideration by the Labour Commissioner. The representation dated 03.04.2017 reads as under:

- 4 -

"To, Date:03/04/2017 Deputy Labour Commissioner Div 01, Karmika Bhavana, Bannerughatta Road, Bangalore. Sub: Request to grant 10 days time to submit details for Notice CR-06/2016-17 & CR- 05/2016-17.

With reference to the above subject we Tamura Elcomponcis Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hirehalli Industrial area, Tumkur. We have received your notice Dated: 09/03/2016 on 25th Mar 2017, we requesting to grant another 10 days time to submit reply with related documents as per notice, please do the needful. Thanking you,

Authorised Signature

Sd/-

Tamura Elcomponcis Technologies Pvt. Ltd."

4. Learned Senior counsel would then take us through Annexure-O2 dated 17.04.2017, which is yet again one more representation by the appellant/Management seeking two weeks time to collect the details and submit it before the adjudicating authority. The Annexure-O2 reads as under:

- 5 -

"To, Date: 17/04/2017 Deputy Labour Commissioner Div 01, Karmika Bhavana, Bannerughatta Road, Bangalore. Sub: Request to grant 2 weeks time to submit details for Notice CR-06/2016-17.

With reference to the above subject we Tamura Elcomponcis Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Hirehalli Industrial area, Tumkur. We have received your notice Dated 09/03/2016 on 25th Mar 2017 and we have taken 10 days extension time on 04/04/2017, as we have to collect almost 60 workers details and we need to consult our legal advisor hence we request to grant another 2 weeks time to submit reply with related documents as per notice, please do the needful.

Thanking you

Authorized Signature

Sd/-

Tamura Elcomponcis Technologies Pvt. Ltd."

5. Lastly learned Senior counsel would take this Court through Annexure-O3 dated 16.06.2017 which is yet again a request praying for 30 days time to place before the Commissioner the details of the workers.

- 6 -

6. We have perused the Annexure-F series i.e., Annexure-F1 to F10, being the photographs dated 03.09.2012 to 18.07.2017. A perusal of Anneure-F8 dated 17.06.2017, Annexure-F9 dated 07.06.2017 and Annexure-F10 dated 18.07.2017 belies the contention canvassed by the learned Senior counsel, it does not demonstrate the blockage of the passage for either the employers or the managing cadre of the employers to enter the premises. On the contrary, the Annexures-F1, F8, F9 and F10 would clearly reveal the presences of the Management within the premises. In that view of the matter, we have put the same to the learned Senior counsel and the learned Senior counsel would submit that the appellant has nothing more to add to the submissions placed before this Court.

7. Having perused the records and having examined the decision of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge, which warrants interference even as per the case

- 7 -

canvassed by the appellant. The last request made by the appellant/employer seeking for extension of time is dated 16.07.2017 and the documentary evidence i.e., in the form of photograph is dated 18.07.2017, the order impugned before the learned Single Judge is dated 04.10.2017. Even otherwise the sequence of dates would clearly reveal that the appellant had nearly 2 1/2 months period of time before the impugned order came to be passed by the Labour Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the appeal is devoid of merits and is accordingly

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR