Back
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Vinod Kumar Tiwari, IC
S Velkumar – Appellant
Versus
PIO, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Ministry of Defence – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. multiple rti applications filed by the appellant. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. clarification on repetitive nature of applications and their consequences. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. importance of the principle of res judicata in rti applications. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:
“When the workman shri. Velkumar did not provide the personal protective equipment required for the work even after requesting it, the concerned worker filed a complaint with the relevant departments in this regard, and as a retaliatory act, the management illegally prepared documents that the workman was doing less work and fired (remove from service) the workman.
This is for the worker to prove it evidence records are required. Also, the workman is required to submit this document to the court as dependent evidence ID ACT Case No. 36/2021 in CG-IT Labor Court Chennai. Date of cross examination of this case on 02.08.2023 recorded by respondent Mr.
Selvakumar (MW1) as follows:
Affidavit given by the respondent: It is a fact that almost all the employees except the petitioner have achieved more than 150% of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
