Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court at the instance of Air India required a person invoking the RTI Act to exhaust her alternative statutory remedies. A panel, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice J. Anil Kumar, allowed an appeal filed by Air India questioning the order of a single judge. M Uma Devi, the respondent, who invoked the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, claimed to be the elder daughter of late P.R. Babu Rao, a retired employee of Air India Limited (formerly Indian Airlines Limited). He died intestate in 1988, leaving behind four children, including the respondent. On the premise that he did not receive gratuity, Provident Fund and retrial dues during his lifetime, she filed an application after 30 years seeking information with regard to payment of the dues. When the application was answered by the information officer, she filed an appeal before the regional director stating that the information was insufficient. The appellate authority rejected her plea. She not only filed a second appeal but also filed a writ petition. A single judge in March set aside the order of first appellate authority. Avinash Desai, senior counsel, appearing for Air India, said that a second appeal was preferred by Uma Devi and was decided in 2020. The single judge ought to have appreciated that the information, which was sought, was furnished to her. He contended that the respondent had failed to challenge the second appellate authority’s order. The bench in view of the same set aside the order of the single judge and gave liberty to the respondent to challenge the order passed by the second appellate authority in accordance with the law. Faulting the order of the single judge, the panel, speaking through Chief Justice Aradhe, pointed out: “The order passed by the second appellate authority was not challenged in the writ petition and therefore it was not open for the learned single judge to set aside the order passed by the first appellate authority when the same had already been merged with the order passed by the second appellate authority.”
Notices to employer oN PF disputes
Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar of the Telangana High Court ordered notices to GDX Sanitation and Security Services over alleged disputes in remitting Employees Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance to members of the petitioner union. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by the Telangana Medical Contract Employees and Workers Union challenging the action of GDX Sanitation and Security Services in paying only Rs 11,000 against agreed amount of Rs 12,093 towards minimum wages. The petitioner further complained that the respondents had failed in remitting ESI and PF of the petitioner union workers and to ensure that instructions given by the director of medical education (DME) was acted upon. In the course of the arguments, the judge had questioned the maintainability of the petition and wondered how the DME was concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submited that a representation was addressed to the DME and he issued circulars which were not obliged by the respondents. The judge accordingly ordered notice and posted the matter to June 5.
