Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Mrn Shanmugam vs Ministry Of Labour & Employment on 23 February, 2015

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                         Club Building (Near Post Office)
                       Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                              Tel: +91-11-26101592

                                                         File No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000583/7045
                                                                           23 February 2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                             :     Mr. N. Shanmugam
                                            S/o Late M. Magamuthu
                                            No. 121/47, Kalmettu Street,
                                            Veereswaram, Srirangam,
                                            Tiruchirappalli - 620006

Respondent                            :     CPIO & RPFC
                                            EPFO
                                            Sub-Regional Office
                                            Trichy - 08

RTI application filed on              :     27/08/2010
PIO replied on                        :     27/09/2010
First appeal filed on                 :     18/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order       :     07/04/2011
Second Appeal received on             :     21/06/2012

Information sought

:-

The applicant has sought the following information:-
1. Once a number is allotted to an employee whether the management can cancel the PF account No. I was allotted a PF Account no. TN/TR/32498 by our employer M/s Nanda Gas Agency but it was cancelled without my knowledge.
2. After collecting the PF Amount of Rs. 3412 from the employee for the period of 3 years whether the management can cancel the PF Account without the knowledge of the employees. If doing so should the management inform the same to the employees?
3. Can the management cancel the PF account without my signature even majority members are signed out of 10 members?
4. If the management did so whether the PF Office can take action against the management.
5. What is the total amount is my PF Account NO. TN/TR/32498 till date.
6. How many members are signed in the Joint Endorsement in PF A/c No. TN/TR/32498. Kindly provide the name and particulars of the signatories.
7. How many employees is required for the action taken through PF Office.
8. What action should be taken if management employed below the minimum employees required.
9. How many gas agencies at Trichy paying PF Amount provide details?
10. Action has been taken against Cinema Theatre which employed the below minimum worker while so what action will be taken on the gas agency which employed below the minimum 10 labourers.
11. Can we approach the court if PF office failed to deduct the PF Amount for the delivery boys?
Page 1 of 2
12. Who has to be approached for taking action for delivery boys through the PF Office?

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

The CPIO has not provided the desired information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. N. Shanmugam through VC Respondent: Mr. Shiva Kumar CPIO through VC The appellant stated that his former employer M/s Nanda Gas Agency had deducted PF from his salary and he wants to claim the balance lying to his credit in PF account no. TN/TR/32498. The CPIO stated that the establishment had applied for voluntary coverage on 20/06/1996 but thereafter on 03/07/1996 they put in a request for decoding which was approved vide letter dated 27/11/1996 and no PF has been deposited by them. The appellant produced a letter dated 6/11/1995 purported to have been issued by the establishment confirming that an amount of Rs.2412/- was received from the appellant towards PF. He claimed that the establishment was regularly deducting PF from his salary upto May 1996. The CPIO stated that though the information, as available on record, has been provided, however, he will depute an enforcement officer to look into the appellant's grievance and provide him a copy of the report.
Decision notice:
The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. However, as agreed by the CPIO he should depute an enforcement officer to the establishment and provide a copy of the report to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(R. L. Gupta) Dy. Registrar/Designated Officer Page 2 of 2