The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, April 18, 2017.
The
public authority is not correct and legal to force the appellant to file a
fresh RTI application for seeking additional information arising out of
inspection and the CPIOs in general are advised to answer information requests
arising out of inspection as that will be continuation of the RTI application.
They should understand that fresh RTI application will not yield any benefit
for the public authority and instead it will increase the work load. Providing
information sought after inspection will deliver information justice quickly
and prevent multiple applications and appeals on the same subject.
Labour
Union leader Rathod filed an RTI application, seeking information about amount
payable by establishment, date of implementation for deduction of PF, FPF and
other payable amounts, amount credited in accounts of individual workers, date
from which interest credited up to withdrawal, procedure withdrawals etc.
In
his second appeal, he explained the problem:
1.
Due to slow and delayed tactics of Shyam Gokul T.B.
Hospital, Chavand, District Amrely, most of PF Members could not file their
claims like withdrawal benefits, scheme certificate, etc.
2.
Information given was: ‘the information sought is not
clear, kindly clarify.’ This reply is
not proper in the first instance.
3.
On inspection they did not give complete information and
advised us to file appeal.
4.
Application of Review was rejected saying there is no
provision for review by first appellate authority.
5.
Evidence of the Appeal: The copies of all
evidences/communications are enclosed herewith as per Ex-I to VX. Please consider it.
6.
We herewith declare that the draft of this second appeal
is true to the best of our knowledge and belief.
7.
Information/particulars which may be deemed fit and
proper to decide the appeal by the Hon’ble Commissioner are as under: That the
records of PF etc are maintained by the respondents and the information sought
is available with the respondents and hence information sought must be given.
Reasons
for appeal
i. That the respondent has not supplied the information
though it is with respondents.
ii. The First
Appellate Authority did not consider the facts and circumstances of the appeal
and that has to be set aside.
iii. The employees
could not submit their claims due to respondent’s non-regularisation and
non-supply of information.
iv. Consider our
evidence and exempt from presence.
Appellants
pray as under:
a.
Order appeal is maintainable and direct information to be
given free of cost.
b.
order penalty
c.
order to give costs and compensation.
d.
Any relief as deed fit you sir pass necessary order.
Place: Bhavnagar, Dt: 1st October, 2015”
This
is perfectly drafted and presented second appeal, and deserves all
appreciation.
It
is also clear that appellant is a trade union leader and the establishment
collected contribution from employees towards PF and FPF but no amount was
credited into their accounts. The appellant sought copies of the forms of
claims made by 17 persons. Basically, the appellant is challenging the inaction
and non-performance of duties by the office of public authority.
The
appellant represents a trade union of employees and PF members. The
establishment is statutorily bound to submit necessary forms and documents and
returns to credit the amounts of PF, EPF and other dues under various Forms 3,
6-A, 12-A, with specimen signatures duly filled, signed and attested, which
they violated.
The
PF office did not perform their duty to ensure the fulfilment of mandatory
submissions and crediting of PF contributions from workers, by the hospital and
failed to take action against that establishment.
The
appellant claimed that because of this inaction the workers were not in a
position to submit their claims for withdrawal of PF amount or scheme
certificates etc. Appellant complained that the PF office has not given
documents sought for. The appellant in his RTI application and appeals
presented the case very clearly, but the PIO found it ‘not clear’.
It
indicates deliberate mischief by the public authority, as their sole function
is to enable the workers to take benefits of PF, which is their money, and if
the managements of establishment fail to credit the amount in the accounts of
the workers, each worker will be deprived of their statutory right and the
management will be liable for penalty in each case of violation of right of a
worker. The public authority is legitimately expected to initiate penalty cases
against the establishment as many as number of workers whose PF was not
credited to their accounts.
The
workers are forced to use RTI to make irresponsible officers perform their
responsibilities. If PIO pleads ‘lack of clarity’ as an excuse, it could be a
blatant lie and misuse of authority to deny the information in addition to
denial of statutory rights of the workers. It also shows that regulatory office
is hand in glove with establishments which deliberately violate laws and misuse
the amount of contributions from the workers towards PF. It also amounts to
crime of misappropriation of worker’s money.
Ankit
Soni, Assistant Commissioner, says he could not give the copies of forms
because workers have not submitted them, but was silent when asked how they
could submit the claims without having information to be submitted by the
establishment. He could not answer what
action was taken to collect the mandatory forms and documents to be submitted
by the establishment.
The
Commission finds that most of the workers are forced to approach the public
authority for information under RTI Act, with their grievance that their own
contributed amount was not being credited to their account by the
establishment.
Surprisingly,
the public authority is not recognising the serious problem of workers and
legal wrongs of establishments and dealing with RTI applications with a closed
mindset. It is raising lame excuses like ‘not clear’ and rejecting the
disclosure compelling the workers to appeal. Unfortunately, the first appellate
authorities, who are their own senior officers, are simply upholding the
denials forcing the workers to approach this Commission.
.JPG)
.JPG)
