Central Information Commission
Lala Ram Mahawar vs Ministry Of Skill Development & ... on 16 May, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602631, CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602634
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602637 & CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602450
Lala Ram Mahawar .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Assistant Director, M/o Skill
Development & Entrepreneurship,
Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh,
New Delhi - 110023 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025
Date of Decision : 16.05.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned second appeals are clubbed together as the Appellant
is common and subject-matter is similar in nature and hence are being
disposed of through a common order.
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602631
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 20.11.2023
First appeal filed on : 13.12.2023
First Appellate Authority's : 08.01.2024
order
Page 1 of 11
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 08.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"1. Kindly provide details explaining the reasons and circumstances for the approval of Offline Contract of Apprenticeship by RDAT Mumbai for the Establishment IOCL (MD) WR (those candidates joined Jan-2018), Contract generated after 16 months of Apprenticeship joining.
2. Please provide a detailed explanation as to why RDAT Mumbai is approving Offline Contracts (while Online contract was mandatory at that time) even after a period of 16 months from the commencement of Apprenticeship Training. Kindly elucidate any specific circumstances, reasons that have led to this prolonged approval process.
3. Kindly provide a detailed explanation as to why RDAT Mumbai approved Offline Contracts specifically for Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (Marketing Division) Western Region when the website www.apprenticeship.gov.in was fully functional and capable of processing Apprenticeship Contract Online. Please specify any circumstances or reasons that led to this decision."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.11.2023 stating as under:
"Information sought pertains to the establishment under the jurisdiction of RDSDE Maharashtra. Mail has been sent to RDSDE Maharashtra to sought the information and copy to the applicant. Mail attached"
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.01.2024, held as under.
"The information provided by the CPIO is not misleading. During the period 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, the various functionalities of portal site www.apprenticeship.gov.in were in progress, therefore, the portal was not fully functional and hence the employers were allowed to engage apprentices offline and signing of apprenticeship contracts offline under the Apprentice Act 1961. Further, the Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline."Page 2 of 11
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602634 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 07.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 13.12.2023 First Appellate Authority's : 08.01.2024 order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 24.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Q1. Online contract is done within thirty days of joining the apprenticeship training, When website (old portal) www.apprenticeship.gov.in was fully functional and portal was fully functional, Then why rdat mumbai is approving offline contract even after 16 months."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.12.2023 stating as under:
"13 RTIs have been received from the same applicant raising multiple questions on the reply from the CPIO. However please find enclosed the reply from RDSDE and the order issued by DGT for clarification."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.01.2024, held as under.
"The information provided by the CPIO is not misleading. During the period 2016,2017,2018 and 2019, the various functionalities of portal site www.apprenticeship.gov.in were under progress, therefore, the portal was not fully functional and hence the employers were allowed to engage apprentices offline and signing of apprenticeship contracts offline under the Apprentice Act 1961. Further, the Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline."Page 3 of 11
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602637 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.11.2023 CPIO replied on : 12.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.12.2023 First Appellate Authority's : 08.01.2024 order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 24.11.2023 seeking the following information:
"Background:
Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) Marketing Division (MD) Western Region (WR) published an Advertisement for Apprenticeship for Technician/ Trade Apprentice vide Advertisement No. IOCL/MKTG/WR/APPR./2017. The Apprenticeship Registration No. was given to the Location-In Charge at the time of joining the Apprenticeship. I have completed Apprenticeship Training from 5th Jan 2018 to 4th Jan 2019 without Apprenticeship contract, as stated in the aforementioned advertisement. None of my Apprenticeship Contract were generated by the Establishment IOCL (MD) WR/ RDAT Mumbai in 2017-18 (as per RTI reply: Apprenticeship website was fully function during Between 05.01.2018 to 04.01.2019) Issue: I tried to obtain copy of a Contract through RTI from both IOCL (MD) WR and RDAT Mumbai. I also went to the RDAT and IOCL Office to obtain the copy of a Contract, but RDAT stated that IOCL would provide a copy of the Contract. You can also get in touch with IOCL, and IOCL said that RDAT send the copy of a Contract directly via mail to the candidate, and IOCL further recommended getting touch with RDAT Mumbai. When IOCL called me by phone in April 2019, they provided me with Offline Contract No. E-01/644707037374, however no hard or soft copy of the Contract was sent/provided. After that, when I filed RTI and FA in DGT, it was after I filed the Second Appeal at the CIC that the hearing was scheduled for 30/06/2020. According to DGT, your Offline Contract was signed on 04/02/2019, and its hard copy was sent to me three days after the hearing, one copy by mail and one copy via Post. After this, I then filed RTI to IOCL, and IOCL replied in the RTI that l your contract form was submitted Page 4 of 11 to RDAT Mumbai on 29/04/2019, and that as of right now, no Contract of mine has been generated from RDAT.
Information sought:
Q11. Under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014, can an Offline contract be generated after completion of Apprenticeship Training Will all of them treated as Apprentice?
Q12. Will all these treated as Apprentice under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q13. Will the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014 be applicable to all of these? If so, details thereof.
Q14. Will the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014 be applicable to me? If so, details thereof.
Q15. Under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014, does the recruitment by the Establishment for Apprentices become that candidate(s) an Apprentice?
Q16. According to the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014, are we Apprentices or not?
Q17. According to the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014, when does a candidate become or be treated as an Apprentice?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.12.2023 stating as under:
"Multiple RTIs have been received from the applicant (total 15 nos) asking multiple questions to the replies received . Reference to the order no. VSSC/APIO/2017 dated 16th May,2023 is attached for information 11,12,13,14,15) Section 2 (aa) of the Apprenticeship Act 1961 provides the definition for apprentice and is reproduced below:
apprentice means a person who is undergoing apprenticeship training in pursuance of a contract of apprenticeship.
Further, As per Section 4(1) of the Apprenticeship Act 1961 Page 5 of 11 No person shall be engaged as an apprentice to undergo apprenticeship training in a designated trade unless such person or, if he is a minor, his guardian has entered into a contract of apprenticeship with the employer.
Also as per Section 4(2) of the Apprenticeship Act 1961 The apprenticeship training shall be deemed to have commenced on the date on which the contract of apprenticeship has been been entered into under sub-section (1) Also an order dated 10.10.2017 was issued by DGT(copy attached) stating -Keeping in view the difficulties faced by stakeholders it is decided to allow the employers to engage apprentices offline signing of contracts offline and registration of apprenticeship contracts by apprenticeship advisors in offline mode till such time. when the support is completely in place."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.01.2024, held as under.
"During the period 2016,2017,2018 and 2019, the various functionalities of portal site www.apprenticeship.gov.in were under progress, therefore, the portal was not fully functional and hence the employers were allowed to engage apprentices offline and signing of apprenticeship contracts offline under the Apprentice Act 1961. Further, the Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline."
CIC/MSD&E/A/2024/602450 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 24.10.2023 CPIO replied on : 21.12.2023 First appeal filed on : 23.12.2023 First Appellate Authority's : 08.01.2024 order 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : Nil Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application (online) dated 24.10.2023 seeking the following information:
"Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) Marketing Division (MD) Western Region (WR) published an Advertisement for Apprenticeship for Technician/ Trade Apprentice vide Advertisement No. IOCL/MKTG/WR/APPR./2017. The Page 6 of 11 Apprenticeship Registration No. was provided to the Location-In-Charge at the time of joining the Apprenticeship. I have completed Apprenticeship Training from 5th Jan 2018 to 4th Jan 2019 without Apprenticeship contract, as stated in the aforementioned advertisement. None of my Apprenticeship Contract were generated by the Establishment IOCL (MD) WR/ RDAT Mumbai in 2017-18 (as per RTI reply: Apprenticeship website (www.apprenticeship.gov.in) was fully function during Between 01.01.2018 to 15.06.2019) Issue:
I tried to obtain copy of a Contract through RTI from both IOCL (MD) WR and RDAT Mumbai. I also went to the RDAT and IOCL Office to obtain the copy of a Contract, but RDAT stated that IOCL would provide a copy of the Contract. You can also get in touch with IOCL, and IOCL said that RDAT send the copy of a Contract directly via mail to the candidate, and IOCL further recommended getting touch with RDAT Mumbai. When IOCL called me by phone in April 2019, they provided me with Offline Contract No. E-01/644707037374, however no hard or soft copy of the Contract was sent/provided. After that, when I filed RTI and FA in DGT, it was after I filed the Second Appeal at the CIC that the hearing was scheduled for 30/06/2020. According to DGT, your Offline Contract was signed on 04/02/2019, and its hard copy was sent to me three days after the hearing, one copy by mail and one copy via Post. After this, I then filed RTI to IOCL, and IOCL replied in the RTI that your contract form was submitted to RDAT Mumbai on 29/04/2019, and that as of right now, no Contract of mine has been generated from RDAT.
Information sought:
Q1. Will I be treated as an Apprentice under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q2. Is the contract generated legally valid under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q3. Under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014, does legal justice and regulation justify aforementioned contract?
Q4. Will this contract be considered valid under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q5. Will I be considered an Apprentice under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q6. Whatever occurred during the contract generation deemed accurate under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q7. Can a backdated Offline contract be generated under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q8. Can a backdated Online contract be generated under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?
Q9. Can an Offline contract be generated backdated after completion of Apprenticeship Training under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?Page 7 of 11
Q10. Can a backdated Online contract be generated under the Apprentice Act 1961 (Amendment) 2014?"
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 21.12.2023 stating as under:
"The applicant has filed more than 15 RTIs asking multiple and similar questions and all questions have been answered various times in the previous RTIs. Apprenticeship is governed by apprenticeship Act 1961.The applicant may seek information pertaining to the questions raised from Apprenticeship Act 1961."
3. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 08.01.2024, held as under.
"Information already provided to you as per the provisions of Apprentices Act 1961. It is further informed during the period 2016,2017,2018 and 2019, the various functionalities of portal site www.apprenticeship.gov.in were under progress, therefore, the portal was not fully functional and hence the employers were allowed to engage apprentices offline and signing of apprenticeship contracts offline under the Apprentice Act 1961. Further, the Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
5. The following were present:-
Appellant: Present though VC.
Respondent: Shri Yoginder Kumar, Assistant Director, attended the hearing in person.
6. The Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent qua the instant RTI Application. He added that he has completed apprenticeship under IOCL on 04.01.2019 and apprised the bench of the fact that whenever a person does an Apprenticeship in a company, an online contract is mandatory and must be generated from the portal within one month of joining. He claimed that the Respondent authorities generated an offline contract after the completion of the apprenticeship and therefore, the offline contract is not legally valid.
Page 8 of 117. The Respondent submitted that suitable replies in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act have been given to the Appellant. He apprised the bench of the fact that during the period 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, the various functionalities of portal site <www.apprenticeship.gov.in> were under progress, therefore, the portal was not fully functional and hence the employers were allowed to engage apprentices offline and signing of apprenticeship contracts offline under the Apprentice Act 1961. Further, the Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline.
8. He apprised the bench of the fact that the Appellant has totally misconceived the provisions of the Apprentice Act 1961 and now he is seeking regular employment in IOCL in lieu of his apprenticeship period. He submitted that the Appellant is trying to find solution to his grievance by filing various RTI Applications and Appeals on the same subject matter and 8 Second Appeals have already been heard and disposed off by the previous Bench of the Commission.
9. The Commission interjected and asked the Appellant to prove the fact that he had applied for a regular post in IOCL, which happens only through an open transparent and competitive process. The Appellant failed to provide any proof of the same and rather stated that he has only applied for apprenticeship against advertisement bearing No. IOCL/APPR/2017 which is for Technical and Trade Apprenticeship. On completion of the apprenticeship period he appeared in the mandatory exam for issuance of Apprenticeship certificate, which he received on 21.4.2019. The Commission then asked the Appellant whether he is seeking regular employment in IOCL in lieu of his apprenticeship period by proving that the averred offline contract given to him was illegal, he replied in affirmative.
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that suitable replies in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act have been given to the Appellant. The Appellant in the instant case is seeking regular employment in IOCL assuming that his apprenticeship period was an employment on contract by attempting to prove that the averred offline contract signed with him by IOCL was illegal. The Respondent on the other hand has Page 9 of 11 clarified to the Appellant that Contract Approving Authorities were also permitted to register/approve apprenticeship contracts offline. The Commission is of the opinion that the Appellant has totally misconceived the provisions of the Apprentice Act 1961, under which apprenticeship training is provided to unemployed youth so as to enhance prospects of their employability. Hence, no intervention of the Commission is required in the instant cases.
11. Be that as it may, the Commission further observes from perusal of records that 8 Second Appeals of the same Appellant against same and different Public Authority have already been heard and disposed of by different Benches of the Commission. In this regard, it is also worth noting that 7 Second Appeal cases, including the present set of cases are listed for today's hearing. The Appellant has filed numerous RTI Applications seeking similar information in each of his RTI Applications to pressurize the Public Authority to offer him regular employment rather than actual interest in getting the information. This intention of the Appellant militates against the spirit of the RTI Act whose primary objective is providing information to the citizens. It appears that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his Right to Information as being absolute and unconditional. The Commission advises the Appellant to make judicious and sensible use of his Right to Information Act in future.
The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 10 of 11 Copy To:
The FAA, Director, M/o Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Kaushal Bhawan, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi - 110023 Page 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)