Skip to main content

Information relating to wages of employees has to be voluntarily disclosed by public authority

Central Information Commission

Kalyan Kumar Ganguly v. PIO, ESIC, Kolkata

MANU/CI/0314/2017

11.05.2017

Right to Information

Information relating to wages of employees has to be voluntarily disclosed by public authority

Appellant sought information regarding M/s. Laxmi Distribution. Specifically, he sought relationship between one Mr. H.B. Singhvi and M/s. Laxmi Distribution; return of contribution filed for relevant period and whether it was certified by chartered accountants or not; total number of employees working in said establishment etc. through eight points. CPIO denied on grounds that, information sought was relating to third party. Being dissatisfied by Order given by FAA who upheld decision of CPIO, Appellant approached this Commission. Appellant submitted that, PF amount was deducted for period 1986 to 1988 but it was not deposited, and no benefits were given from 1986 to 2016.

PF account is not like any other individual private bank account where all his personal money also could be transacted, which could be his personal information. PF account does not contain any other money except accumulated amount of both contributions over a period of time. It is mandatory by law to contribute these two amounts to PF account. Hence, it is not private information. It is not personal because it has nothing to do with their private activity. It is relating to social security of workers at post-retirement period, which need to be secured for such longer periods. That is public interest. If it is kept secret, and an individual PF subscribed is cornered under fear or favour not to challenge fraud, employer can perpetuate the fraud. Hence, a third person or trade union leader or citizen can seek such information. Thus, argument of PIO that, worker can ask only about his information about PF account is not tenable. Information sought is available with employer and trustee. It cannot be denied to worker in particular and people in general.

Expression 'personal information' applies to 'individuals' and not 'bodies/institutions' or entities working for public good. Use of term "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j) of Right to Information Act, 2005 means information involving a private individual. Section 8(1)(j) of Act, prescribed 'public interest' as a requirement to decide disclosure of information though exempted. CPIO or First Appellate Authority is not just an executive officer in his office but an "authority" under RTI Act with a responsibility to use his personal discretion as per law while deciding RTI request. Public interest under section 8(1)(j) of Act, requires three conditions to be considered: absence of relationship with public activity or interest or, possibility of unwarranted invasion of privacy or, existence of larger public interest. Language of section 8(1)(j) of Act,  is very clear i.e., it demands satisfaction of CPIO.

In G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad, it is o held that, authority may order disclosure of such information, if they are satisfied that, larger public interest justifies disclosure. This would imply that, even a personal information which has some relationship to any public activity or interest may be liable to be disclosed. An invasion of privacy may also be held to be justified, if larger public interest so warrants. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze ambit and scope of both expressions "personal information" and "invasion of privacy".

Commission opines that, information relating to wages of employees has to be voluntarily disclosed by public authority under Section 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act, 2005. Workers' list, their salaries, and PF account money deposited in form of contributions by employer and employee as per a statute and a scheme under statute cannot be considered as 'third party' information. Workers file RTI application, only when there is some grievance or complaint regarding depositing or non-depositing of amount or wrong assessment of contribution, non-payment of interest on delayed crediting of contribution. None of this could be private information of some job holder or employer. PF account is different from savings bank account of a person. PF account is exclusively meant for holding contributions by both employer and employee and no other amount gets deposited or withdrawn.

Commission after perusing records finds that, Appellant has been harassed for no rhyme or reason and he has been deprived from getting information, in this regard, Commission suggests Appellant to make a representation to Respondent authority as well as CPIO, EPFO, Salt Lake City, Kolkata about documents that, he is wanting for. Commission directs CPIO, ESIC to provide information sought, after securing them from establishment M/s. Laxmi Distributions. Further, Commission directs CPIO, EPFO, Salt Lake City, Kolkata to provide all details to Appellant with regard to his PF details. Commission also directs M/s. Laxmi Distributions to provide the information sought.

Relevant

G.R. Rawal v. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), Ahmedabad

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

PETITIONER:
State of Nagaland

RESPONDENT:
Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005

BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…