Copies of form no. 9 of eight establishments denied claiming that information relates to third parties and is personal - Appellant: establishments have cheated the workers of their legitimate dues - CIC: provide list of employees covered under EPF
28 Nov, 2013Copies of form no. 9 of eight establishments denied claiming that the information relates to third parties and are personal in nature - exemption u/s 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and 8(1)( j) – Appellant: establishments have cheated the workers of their legitimate dues and various cases are going on against them in the Labour and Industrial courts – CIC: list of the employees covered under EPF to be provided
Information sought:
Sl. Name of Establishments PF Code nos. Groups
1. Ratilal Beeharilal and sons MH-20328 45
2. Neerma Gems MH-91222 66
3. Sonel Enterprises MH-90095 47
4. Mehta Enterprises MH-91223 66
5. Ratnaraj Enterprises MH-91218 66
6. Alka and Co. MH-91850 79
7. Gulab Bhoir Enterprises MH-91221 66
8. Milind Enterprises MH-38943 4
With reference to the above establishments you are hereby requested to supply us the certified/authenticated copies of the documents maintained under FORM-9 in your office at the time of incorporation of the said establishments and subsequently maintained time to time till date and if there is any change/amendment/and or alteration carried out in the said documents by the establishments or by your office, be pleased to let us know in writing alongwith the supporting authenticated documents with reasons for the same.
Grounds for the Second Appeal: The information has been refused under Section 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. D A Bhagwat CAPIO through VC
The CAPIO stated that the appellant vide his RTI application dated 05/06/2012 had sought copies of form no. 9 of eight establishments but the details contained in the said form relate to third parties and are personal in nature and therefore, exempt under Section 8(1)(e) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; &(j) of the RTI Act. It is seen that the appellant in his appeal to the Commission has alleged that the said establishments have cheated the workers of their legitimate dues and various cases are going on against them in the Labour and Industrial courts. The CAPIO stated that he will provide the list of the employees covered under EPF by the said establishments to the appellant to enable him to verify whether all the employees are covered and if he is still aggrieved he should approach the competent authority(s) for redressal. The appellant is not present for making his submissions/contesting the facts.
Decision notice:
The appellant has not availed the opportunity to appear before the Commission and canvass his case/contest the respondent’s submissions, however, as agreed by the CAPIO the information as above should be provided to him within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Joy Deb Saha v. EPFO in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001592/3703