{"id":169749,"date":"2011-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-14T20:31:50","modified_gmt":"2015-08-14T15:01:50","slug":"mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                           Club Building (Near Post Office)\n                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067\n                                Tel: +91-11-26161796\n\n                                                           Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001275\/13254\n                                                           Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001275\n\nRelevant Facts<\/pre>\n<p> emerging from the Appeal<\/p>\n<p>Appellant                            :       Mr. Trilochan Mahato<br \/>\n                                             S\/o Sh. Jay Ram Mahato<br \/>\n                                             R\/O WZ-150\/4. Near Primary<br \/>\n                                             School Qtrs. Madi Pur Village<br \/>\n                                             New Delhi-110063<\/p>\n<p>Respondent                           :       Mr. J. K. Chandel<br \/>\n                                             CPIO &amp; Dy. Director<br \/>\n                                             Regional Office,<br \/>\n                                             ESI Corporation, Ministry of Labour<br \/>\n                                             Rajendra Bhawan,<br \/>\n                                             Rajendra Place, New Delhi &#8211; 110008<\/p>\n<p>RTI application filed on             :       26\/12\/2010<br \/>\nReply of PIO                         :       not replied<br \/>\nFirst appeal filed on                :       25\/01\/2011<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Authority order      :       06\/04\/2011<br \/>\nSecond Appeal received on            :       11\/05\/2011<\/p>\n<p>Information Sought by Appellant:\n<\/p>\n<p>Inspections Reports along with complete enclosures of the given employers of Central Divisional<br \/>\nOffice and the copy of the noting sheets of the concerned employers files where those inspection<br \/>\nreports have been dealt with up to the realization of amount, if pointed out by the Insurance Inspector.\n<\/p>\n<p>Grounds of the First Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>No information provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>Order of the FAA:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The appellant has sought information in respect of 30 units about their Inspections Report &amp; Noting<br \/>\nSheet as the information pertains to the employers (third party information). A reference was made to<br \/>\nthe respected employer calling for objections if any for providing the information. A large number of<br \/>\nemployers have objected to the furnishing of information about their units. Some of the employers<br \/>\nhave also asked to specific reason \/ purpose for seeking the information about third party by the<br \/>\napplicants.\n<\/p>\n<p>On perusal of the records, it is found that Smt. Saraswati Rawat, SSO (Legal) in ESIC has also<br \/>\nstrongly objected to the dissemination of the information stating therein that some interested persons<br \/>\nhave been hatching a conspiracy against her h) way of making fake complaint against her and seeking<br \/>\ncertain information against hr. as these Inspection Report were submitted by her to the ESIC during<br \/>\nthe course of her working as Insurance Inspector.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 8 (h) &#8212; Provides for exemption from furnishing the information which would impede the<br \/>\nprocess of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The inspection Report of some of<br \/>\nthese employers have been cited as document while framing the Charge Sheet against Srnt. Rawat.<br \/>\nThe objections raised by Smt. Rawat appears to be justified. As her case still is tinder Departmental<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                            Page 1 of 3<\/span><br \/>\n Enquiry and dissemination of information relating to these remarks is likely to impede the process of<br \/>\ndepartmental enquiry and therefore warrants to be denied under this exemption clause.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, Sec 8(1) provides for exemption of discloser of personal information the disclosure of<br \/>\nwhich has no relationship to any public activity or interest is also applicable to the case since the<br \/>\nInspection Report \/ Noting Sheet dealing with this reports exclusively relate to the individuals<br \/>\nemployers and has no relevance to any public activity or interest of the Information Seeker. No larger<br \/>\npublic interest by the disclosure of such information would he served.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 11 deals with the third party information provides for giving opportunity to the third party<br \/>\nagainst the proposed disclosure. As per objections raised by many a employers of these units, the<br \/>\nrequest of the third party i.e. employers cannot be ignored in this case as they have genuine grievances<br \/>\nagainst supply of the information to the Information Seeker.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have considered the view of these third party employers and have found that they have genuine<br \/>\ngrounds for non furnishing of the information I documents. In view of the above said 1. A. K.<br \/>\nVerma ,AC. ARD\/FAA orders that the information sought by the appellant may not be provided under<br \/>\nsection 8 (h). (j) and Section Ii of the RTI Act, 2005, as per reasons recorded in the above said paras.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Ground of the Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>No information provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:\n<\/p>\n<p>The following were present<br \/>\nAppellant: Mr. Anjani Kumar representing Mr. Trilochan Mahato;<br \/>\nRespondent: Mr. J. K. Chandel, CPIO &amp; Dy. Director; Mr. A. K. Verma, First Appellate Authority;\n<\/p>\n<p>        The PIO claims that he sent an interim reply on 03\/02\/2011 which he has shown to the<br \/>\nCommission. The so called interim reply gives no information but states, &#8220;in this connection it is<br \/>\ninformed that information sought by you is too voluminous. However, information is being gathered<br \/>\nfrom the concerned branches and will be provided as soon as received from the same.&#8221; The RTI<br \/>\napplication was filed on 26\/12\/2010 and received in the office of the PIO on 29\/12\/2010. The applicant<br \/>\nhad sought inspection reports carried out by an inspector of ESIC of 30 units. The PIO has given no<br \/>\nreasons for denying the information and the FAA Mr. A. K. Verma has erred in claiming exemption<br \/>\nunder Section 8(1)(h). He has stated that an inquiry is goingon against the inspector Mrs. Rawat who<br \/>\nhas made the inspection report. The FAA has further claimed using great imagination that disclosing<br \/>\ninspection reports filed by Mrs. Rawat will impede the process of the departmental inquiry against<br \/>\nMrs. Rawat. How disclosing the inspection reports made by Mrs. Rawat could impede an inquiry<br \/>\nbeing conducted against Mrs. Rawat has not been explained at all. The PIO claims that third parties<br \/>\nwhose units have been inspected have objected to releasing the information. The Commission has been<br \/>\nshown some of the letters given by the units which had been inspected and they have objected to<br \/>\nreleasing the inspection reports claiming confidentiality. These have no basis in law and it also<br \/>\ninteresting to note that some of the letters have been sent after 03\/02\/2011 when the PIO has stated that<br \/>\nthe records are very voluminous and was collating the records. It has been admitted that all the 30<br \/>\nreports sought by the Appellant were furnished by the same inspector. It is inconceivable that to obtain<br \/>\nthe information about the inspection report submitted by one inspector the PIO takes such a long time.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The PIO is directed to provide the information sought by the Appellant providing<br \/>\nattested photocopies of the inspector of the units before 20 July 2011.\n<\/p>\n<p>The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the<br \/>\nPIO within 30 days as required by the law.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                             Page 2 of 3<\/span><\/p>\n<p> From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information<br \/>\nwithin the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the<br \/>\nrequirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO&#8217;s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20<br \/>\n(1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission<br \/>\nto show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 03 August 2011 at 2.30pm<br \/>\nalongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as<br \/>\nmandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the<br \/>\nPIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before<br \/>\nthe Commission with him.\n<\/p>\n<p>This decision is announced in open chamber.\n<\/p>\n<p>Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.<br \/>\nAny information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                    Shailesh Gandhi<br \/>\n                                                                                          Information Commissioner<br \/>\n                                                                                                       05 July 2011<\/p>\n<p>(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AA)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                                                              Page 3 of 3<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Club Building (Near Post Office) Old JNU Campus, New Delhi &#8211; 110067 Tel: +91-11-26161796 Decision No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001275\/13254 Appeal No. CIC\/SG\/A\/2011\/001275 Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal Appellant : Mr. Trilochan Mahato S\/o Sh. Jay Ram Mahato R\/O WZ-150\/4. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-169749","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1223,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011"},"wordCount":1223,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011","name":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance ... on 5 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T15:01:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-trilochan-mahto-vs-employees-state-insurance-on-5-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr.Trilochan Mahto vs Employees State Insurance &#8230; on 5 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169749","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=169749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/169749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=169749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=169749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=169749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}