Central Information Commission
Mr.Jagmohan Agrawal vs Ministry Of Labour And Employment on 30 November, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002743/BS/1338
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Jagmohan Agrawal
"Annapurna" Preet Vihar Colony,
Khushhalpur Road,
Majholi, Moradabad - 244001
Respondent : CPIO
Ministry of Labour & Employment
Labour Court
Kendriya Bhawan, 08th floor,
Hall No. 1, Aligarj,
Sector-H, Lucknow-226001
RTI application filed on : 22/01/2011
PIO replied : 15/02/2011
First appeal filed on : 02/09/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 12/10/2011
Second Appeal received on : 20/11/2011
Information sought:
1- Provide tenure of Judge Mr. Srikant Shukla, Presiding Officer. 2- Number of cases he has decided, how many were in favor of employee and how many were in favor of employer.
3- How many cases under section 36(3)(4) were represented by Advocates, whether opposition has given consent for this?
4 & 5: Without having jurisdiction the cases were heard and burden of proof was given.
Whether it is as per law or not? Whether such activities indicate Uncle Judge Syndrome or other such syndrome or not?
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information sought in the RTI application.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Jagmohan Agarwal through VC (M: 8899809053) Respondent: Mr. Sushil Tripathi, CPIO through VC (M: 9455388015) The appellant stated that he had not been provided the following information:
(i) The number of cases decided in favour/against employees/employers (query2)
(ii) Number of cases where advocates have represented the matter.(query 3)
(iii) How cognizance has been taken in his case without any complaint?Page 1 of 3
The CPIO stated that he will furnish the information requested in (i) & (ii) above, however, as regards (iii) the question is of interrogatory nature which he is not expected to answer under the RTI Act. He further stated that he has offered the appellant to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information he needs.
Decision Notice:
The CPIO, under the RTI Act, is required to furnish the information/documents as available on records however, opinions, interpretations, analysis, examination of issue, redressal of grievance; reasons for non compliance are outside the purview of the Act.
The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the information under (i) & (ii) above and in case the appellant so desires, permit him to inspect the relevant records and take photocopies/extracts there from, free of cost, up to 25 pages within 15 days of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner November 30th, 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RM) Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3