Central Information Commission
Mrm K Kaushik vs Ministry Of Railways on 20 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 06, Club Building, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067. Tel: 011 - 26182597, 26182598
Appeal No.:CIC/VS/A/2014/000744/BJ
Appellant : Mr. M K Kaushik
House NO. 400, Street No. 2A,
Shiv Colony,
Budhpur Road,
Rewari 123401, Haryana.
Respondent : CPIO
Container Corporation of India
CONCOR Bhawan, C3, Mathura Raod,
Opp. Apollo Hospital, New Delhi 110076.
Date of Hearing : 20/05/2016
Date of Decision : 20/05/2016
Date of filing of RTI application 22.11.2013
CPIO's response 11.12.2013
Date of filing the First appeal 09.01.2014
First Appellate Authority's response 15.01.2014
Date of filing second appeal before the Commission 11.04.2014
O R D E R
FACTS:
The appellant filed a RTI application on 22.11.2013, sought information and the CPIO's reply is as under in a tabular format: Quote S. No. Information Desired Information furnished 1 Whether the labour laws relating to the Yes, all the labour laws as applicable to Page 1 of 4 welfare & safety for the workers are this Public Authority are implemented. implemented in CONCOR.
2 If so, please provide the details thereof. Information is not specific. The applicant may seek specific information as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.
3 Name & designation of the officers, All Departmental Head in Corporate responsible for implementation of the Office. Terminal Incharge/Manager for labour laws. respective terminal & Regional Head for respective Region are responsible for implementation of the Labour Laws.
4 Name & designation of the higher No such need has arisen; however, it can be officers responsible for cross checking cross checked by any Authority superior to of the functioning of the officers in the implementing authority. implementation of the labour laws.
5 List of all the contractors engaged in The information requested under the said various units/ICDs at present, along para is different information for which no with their PF Code & ESI Code. application fee has been made. However, it is to inform that the information is 6 List of all the working through these voluminous and not available in compiled contractors. form. Compilation of the same would divert the resources of the Public Authority 7 Copy of Register of Payment of disproportionately and no public interest Wages/salary sheet of last 3 months of warrants such diversion. The information is all the contract workers along with already in Public Domain by way return countersign of the workers on it as filed with respective payment receipt. Authority/Government Department.
Unquote The FAA concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
HEARING:
Page 2 of 4Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Anurag Mathur, Executive Director/PIO (M:9810400138) and Mr. Amit Madan, Manager (P&A)/APIO (M:9650012133);
The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The respondents explained that the matter pertains to the appellant seeking details vide his RTI application dated 22/11/2013 on the points mentioned above. The application was transferred by PIONCR to PIOCO (CONCOR) vide letter dated 11/12/2013. The appellant was replied on 19/12/2013. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the appellant had filed a first appeal on 09/01/2014. The FAA exercising due diligence furnished the reply on 15/01/2014. It was stated that the information sought by the appellant is maintained by the respective region/terminal where the contract worker is so deployed. It was also informed that this information is in public domain by way of returns submitted to various authorities under different laws. The respondents clarified that they have a Multi Model Logistic Company and the information sought by the appellant is voluminous and pertaining to 64 different terminals. It was informed that if any specific information is required for a particular contract, the same can be supplied.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and the discussions held during the hearing, it is apparent that the information sought by the appellant had been satisfactorily furnished. The appellant was also not present during the hearing to substantiate his claim. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 3 of 4 Page 4 of 4