- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'labour department'.
Found 5 results
Dear members, I'm trying to use RTI to solve a pesky Employees Provident Fund (EPF) transfer issue. The posts on this forum have been most instructive. However I still have the following doubts: 1. The office concerned is in Gurgaon, Haryana. The prescribed RTI fees for this. It is well known that the standard rate for RTI queries is Rs. 10. However, Haryana appears to be an exception and mandates the payment of Rs. 50. But then again, EPF appears to come under the Central Government's Labour Ministry. What fee should I send with my application? 2. Can an RTI application be rejected if I send Rs. 50 when the fee was Rs. 10? 3. Is there any word limit on the length of an RTI application? Thanks in advance.
venkat.avms posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportDear Users, Can I get information under RTI act from the Industries/Factories which are registered and comes under the Department of Labour & Employment? Thanks, Venkat
targettotask posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportDear members, I want to know deeply about registered trade unions, their roles, issues, lock outs , lay offs, strikes and agreements and welfare activities of labour department involving in trade unions. Kindly provide me format to ask questions related to labour issues to labour department.
Labour dept slips on RTI terrain as reported by Ms. Neha Shukla, TNN, LUCKNOW: Aug 23, 2010, Times of India A little learning is a dangerous thing. And it is the labour department of UP that has proved the adage this time. Supposedly, half-baked knowledge of the Right To Information Act (RTI) made the department's order, though issued in `good spirit' look reckless and "surprising" to the state information commission (SIC). The commission has now sought explanation from the department's who's who on legality of the order. The order in question is the one issued by labour commissioner Sitaram Mina on April 7, 2010. The order reads -- "In accordance with the GO issued on April 23, 2007, regional additional/deputy labour commissioners have been nominated as first appeals authority for their area of jurisdiction. These officials have been directed to nominate PIOs and APIOs, according to their discretion, from among the available officers." A copy of the order was forwarded to all departmental officials, principal secretary, labour department, and principal secretary, administrative reforms department. Later, an almost similar order was issued by R B Lal, deputy labour commissioner, Lucknow region, on April 13, 2010. He further informed that assistant labour commissioners in Lucknow, Hardoi, Rae Bareli, Lakhimpur Kheri, Unnao and Sitapur have been nominated as PIOs in their area of jurisdiction. The labour enforcement officers and inspectors in these districts, on the other hand, have been named as APIOs. The SIC has taken adverse view of the orders and has termed the order "surprising". The commission has sent notice to labour commissioner to explain the "legality" of his order. "It is only head of the department who can nominate first appeals authority and PIO," said information commissioner (IC), Gyanendra Sharma. The order has been questioned on the basis of the GO of April 23, 2007, which labour commissioner referred to in his order. The GO signed by the then chief secretary Shambhu Nath reads, "...in all the administrative units and in offices under them, procedure of nominating first appeals authority and PIO will be completed by public authority, as per its discretion and from among the available officials." This boils down to the fact that power to nominate first appeals authority and PIO in any government department rests with the head of the department (HoD). The power cannot be delegated to subordinate officers. The commission observed, "powers delegated by labour commissioner to first appeals authority and PIO in offices of additional/ deputy labour commissioner do not confirm to rules". On the other hand, appointment of APIOs at offices other than sub-divisional ones (or tehsil level) has also been questioned by the commission. UP government in the past has issued an order stating that appointment of APIOs be done at sub-divisional offices only, as mentioned in the RTI Act. The principal secretary, administrative reforms department, has been asked if any order has been issued from their office regarding appointment of APIOs at offices other than tehsil level. "Why should not appointment of APIOs made at other offices be cancelled," questioned the commission. Principal secretary, labour department has been asked to explain why the department did not nominate the first appeals authority till now. The next date of hearing in the case has been fixed for August 25. Source : Labour dept slips on RTI terrain - Lucknow - City - The Times of India
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at www.hindustantimes.com on 20 May 2009 You want information, right? So you exercise your democratic due and file an application under the Right to Information (RTI). And then your question is swallowed by the blank spaces of government registers. Two Labour Department officers were pulled up by the Central Information Commission (CIC) for precisely one such disappearing act. Mohammad Farruddin, a trade union leader, had sought information from the Labour Department. When Farruddin did not get the answer to his query, he approached the CIC, the body constituted to address complaints regarding the RTI. CIC officials went through the dispatch registers of the office and found the information had been marked as sent. But Farruddin had clearly not received any information. Where then was the answer? The solution to this puzzle lay in 13 lines which the CIC officials found left blank in another register. It was then CIC connected the dots and realised the officials in-charge had been leaving space for backdated entries in the register. “The findings reveal a systematically designed process to ensure backdating of documents,” said Shailesh Gandhi, CIC commissioner. "Such a practice evidences intentional dishonesty on the part of the concerned public officials," said Gandhi, in an order last week. Farruddin had filed an appeal with the Labour department's appellate authority, which asked the public information officers V.S. Arya and Suhash Chandra, to provide the information. Farruddin checked with the local post office about mail from the department after the officials told him the information had been sent. He filed a second appeal with the CIC, which issued a notice to the department's information officers. Farruddin then received only part of the information sought. Gandhi then decided to conduct an inquiry and made the shocking findings. “The commission had the opportunity to peruse only some pages of one register from 2007-08 and even within that limited time, it came across thirteen blank lines. It is likely this insidious practice must not be restricted to just one register,” Gandhi observed in his order. The CIC imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on each of the two officials and asked the Delhi chief secretary to initiate disciplinary action against them and recover the fine immediately. Many RTI activists have complained to CIC of not receiving information, despite information officers' claims that they were sent. “In most cases, one has to collect information personally as dispatches from government offices don't reach," said RTI activist S.C. Aggarwal Source: Two govt officials fined for ?filling in the blanks?- Hindustan Times