CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000722
Dated, the 03rd February, 2010.
Appellant : Shri Gauri Shanker Singh
Respondents : Bharat Coking Coal Limited
This matter was heard through videoconferencing (VC) on
01.02.2010 in the presence of both parties. Respondents ⎯represented
by Shri R.K.Roy, Deputy CPM and Shri Manish Mishra, CPIO ⎯ were
present at NIC VC facility at Dhanbad. Appellant too was present at the
same NIC VC facility. Commission conducted the hearing from its New
Delhi office.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 16.01.2009 related to files and
records about deduction of Provident Fund from appellant’s wages by
the public authority, viz. BCCL and its transmission to the CMPF.
Appellant believes that although the public authority deducted
Provident Fund from appellant’s back-wages, they failed to transmit the
accumulated amount to CMPF, thereby causing great hardship to the
appellant, who is a former Electrician and a barely literate. He wants,
therefore, to be shown all the files and documents relating to the
Provident Fund deductions from his wages and record of the
transmission of accumulated amounts to the CMPF in order to be able to
defend his interest and advance his claim to be paid all accumulations
by way of Provident Fund including the employer’s contributions to it.
3. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that they have no
records in this matter to be shown to the appellant. They could lay
their hands on a document described as VV statement, which has
already been provided by them to the appellant. It was urged by the
respondents that from the facts of the case, it appeared that on the
basis of an award given by the Arbitrator, appellant was paid his back-
wages and no Provident Fund was deducted. They argued that
deduction of Provident Fund from the employee’s wages and its
transmission to the CMPF was a regular and well laid-out process and it
was unlikely that Provident Fund was collected, but not transmitted to
the CMPF in respect of any employee. They pointed out that all these
years since 1984, not even once the matter about Provident Fund
AT-03022010-04.doc
Page 1 of 2
deductions from the wages was brought up by the appellant, which goes
to prove that he was aware that no such deductions were made.
4. Appellant’s submission was that he was a semi-literate person,
who did not know what exactly he had to do to defend his interests in
matters such as this. He entirely depended upon the public authority
for regular deduction of Provident Fund from his wages as well as from
his backwages, and came to know about the missing Provident Fund
accumulations only after he retired from service.
5. It is not possible to come to any conclusion about the truth in this
matter on the basis of the respective submissions. From what the
respondents have stated, there appears to be no record about the
deduction of Provident Fund from the appellant’s back-wages and
regular wages, which appellant claims was made by the public
authority. In the absence of any such record, it is not possible to
provide the requisite information to the appellant.
6. In view of the above, this Commission is not in a position to assist
the appellant in any way.
7. Appeal closed.
8. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-03022010-04.doc
Page 2 of 2