Q: My father works for the state government and is retiring next year. But his provident fund amount hasn’t been deposited because the officer who was supposed to sign the papers hasn’t sent it to the concerned authority. Can we apply the provisions of Right to Information Act (RTI) against him?
Neelam
A: The object of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to ensure more effective access to information under the control of a public authority. The procedure for applying for information is stipulated in Section 6 of the Act which provides that a person may make a request in writing or through electronic means to the concerned authority specifying the particulars of the information required. The officials are bound to either provide the information on payment of the prescribed fee or reject the request for any of the reasons / restrictions specified in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as quickly as possible (in any event, within 30 days on receipt of the request). Section 19 provides that if such information is not provided, the person and / or any persons can appeal to the higher authority. From a perusal of the Act, it does not appear that there are mechanisms for taking action against the defaulting officer. In any event, since the money has not been deposited in your father’s account, you already have the necessary information and the question of applying under RTI doesn’t arise. It would therefore be advisable that your father writes to the competent authority requesting him to ensure prompt payment. He can mention in that letter that the courts have often deprecated the failure of government departments to settle necessary papers well before the date of retirement of an employee and have held that it would be reasonable to make the employer liable to pay penal interest in case of delay. The government is obliged to initiate the processes for payment of the retirement benefits and dues according to the time scale prescribed in the rules and non compliance could saddle the government with the liability to pay interest. In one case, the Supreme Court observed that in appropriate cases, the government may consider whether the erring officials should be directed to compensate the government for such liability to pay interest, so as to instill a sense of duty and accountability in them. Of course, if no action is taken, he may have to take recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the high court to ensure compliance.
Q: I used to work as a teacher in a private school. After I handed in my resignation, the school refused to pay my last month’s salary. I have heard that private schools come under the Factory Act. Is that so? What should I do to get back my dues?
Name withheld
A:The Factories Act, 1948, regulates labour practices in factories and is applicable to those employed in the premises of a factory. It deals with regulations relating to the health, safety and welfare of workmen that are meant to ensure a proper work environment. It is strictly not applicable to private schools and doesn’t apply to teachers. It is pertinent to point out that schools may, in certain circumstances, come within the purview of “an industry” for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which provides for quick and effective remedies to workmen, but even then “teachers” don’t come within the definition of workmen under the said Act and therefore you can’t follow that procedure either. Your remedy lies in a civil court and you will have to institute a suit for recovery of your legitimate dues. The merits of your claim, of course, would depend on the terms of your employment contract regarding resignation and its acceptance.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
