World
Rajat Gupta ordered to repay $6.2 million to Goldman Sachs

After reviewing Goldman Sachs’ 542 pages of billing records related to the case, the judge...

Premium Content
Monthly Digital Access

Subscribe

Already A Subscriber?
Login
Yearly Digital+Print Access

Subscribe

Moneylife Magazine Subscriber or MSSN member?
Login

Yearly Subscriber Login

Enter the mail id that you want to use & click on Go. We will send you a link to your email for verficiation
TCS settles US wage dispute for $30 million

The suit charged that TCS unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-US citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to the company and by taking unauthorised deductions from employees’ paychecks

Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), Asia’s largest software-services provider, has agreed to pay $29.8 million to settle a wage dispute in California with workers who were sent to work in the US from India.

 

The complaint was filed by non-US employees Gopi Vedachalam and Kangana Beri, who were sent to the US to work on projects.

 

The suit charged that TCS unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-US citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to the company and by taking unauthorised deductions from employees’ paychecks.

 

Terms of the settlement are described in a 21st February filing with US District judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, California. The judge in April certified the case as a class, or group, lawsuit for all non-US citizens employed by the company in California from 14 February 2002 to 30 June 2005.

 

“This was an extraordinarily hard fought case and we are proud of the result for the employees,” Kelly M Dermody, a lawyer for the workers, said in a communiqué.

 

“TCS believes that it always acted appropriately notwithstanding the allegations in this case,” Michael McCabe, a spokesman for TCS, said. “The company has admitted no wrongdoing and none have been found by the court. It agreed to settle this matter to eliminate any on-going distraction to its associates and management.”

User

COMMENTS

Mohan

3 years ago

Same case with other Indian Companies as they are taking the Tax Refunds from the Employees, I Work CSC and they do take away the Tax Refunds from CSC Employees when this tax refunds is filled its based on the Employee Depedents (I mean the Intimised), Indian Companies can take everything from Employees as our Govt Laws are so weak and they are playing with rules.

RTI Judgement Series: Use Speed Post instead of UPC for sending RTI replies

By using the powers given under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission recommended the PIOs to use Speed Post facility rather than UPC for sending RTI replies. This is the 48th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), using the powers given under Section 25(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act recommended public authorities to send RTI replies by Speed Post, instead of sending it under postal certificate (UPC).

 

While giving this important judgement on 12 March 2010, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner, said, “The instances where the Public Information Officer (PIO)’s claim that they have sent letters by UPC and the appellants claims that they have not received it are fairly large. The Commission therefore recommends to the public authority to send RTI replies by Speed Post. This recommendation has been given under the powers given to the Commission under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act.”

 

Delhi resident Rishipal Singh Tomer sought information from the Directorate of Education,

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD). Here is the information, he sought and the reply he received from the PIO...

 

Sl.

Information Sought

PIO's reply

i.

What was the reason that without any objection in writing the file has returned to school after 4 months on date 30/05/2009.

Due to shortage of staff, the file could not be dealt within time. (O.S Admin) was to deal with the file.

ii.

Was there any objection on his ACP II case file than ... has not returned immediately to H.O.S of the school … objection could be removed.

iii.

What action will be initiated against the official who is responsible for the negligence? Will the DDE Dist West B G. Block, Vikaspuri, Delhi be responsible?

There was no official to deal with hence no action can be taken.

iv.

Due to the negligence of office of the DDE Dist-west-B, the appellant has suffered financial loss and other benefits. Will the official of the Dist-West-B share this loss?

There is no financial loss to the applicant as the ACP will be granted with retrospective effect.

v.

What is the status of his ACP Case (I) today?

The case of the applicant has already been sent to ACP… consideration vide No. DDE/WB/Admin 2009/706 dated 20/08/2009

vi.

Name & designation of the officer of the Directorate of Education to who the appellant could proceed with this matter for the responsibility and suitable action in this case?

No reply.

 

Tomer then filed his first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). However, there was no mention of any reply from the FAA in the appeal. Tomar then approached the Commission citing incomplete information provided by the PIO.

 

During a hearing before Mr Gandhi, the CIC, the appellant stated that he received information only on 4 September 2009 on his RTI application filed on 27 July 2009. The PIO said the RTI application was transferred and he received it only on 5 August 2009. The PIO showed evidence of sending the information on 4 September 2009. However, Tomar claimed that he received it by hand only on 13 November 2009.

 

Mr Gandhi noted that the PIO sent his reply by using UPC and hence the applicant may have received it late. He said such instances where the PIO’s claim that they have sent letters by UPC and appellant’s claims that they have not received it are fairly large. By using the powers given under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission then recommended the PIOs to use Speed Post facility rather than CPC for sending RTI replies.

 

While allowing the appeal, the CIC noted that the information was provided to Tomar by the PIO.

 

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

 

Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2010/000222/7129

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/SG-12032010-09.pdf

Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000222

 

Appellant                                            : Rishipal Singh Tomer,

                                                            New Delhi-110043

                                     

Respondent                                       : Mrs Shukla Malhotra

                                                               Public Information Officer & DDE(W-B)

                                                              O/o the Dy. Director of Education,

                                                              District West B,

                                                              Directorate of Education

                                                              Govt. of NCT of Delhi,

                                                              G-Block, Vikaspuri, New Delhi

User

COMMENTS

P M Ravindran

4 years ago

The postal services are a bundle of follies. Of course the UPC proved that you had posted something but that did not help you in any way because there is no proof for the addressee having received it! In fact even the post office would not admit the UPC as proof if the consumer claimed that the postal article had not been delivered!

Then there is the Acknowledgement Due card attached and paid for with registered postal articles. But again if you did not receive the AD card back no use complaining because the postal authorities maintain that the AD card is sent back as an ordinary postal article!

Coming to speedpost, every post office affixes a print out on the envelope and gives the duplicate as a receipt to the sender. But not the post office serving the CIC, New Delhi, that is RK Puram. They claim it is a bulk contract and hence no receipts are issued to the sender and hence no printouts with details affixed to the envelope. These details include,amoung other things, the date and time of posting and the weight of the contents. These details are important for the sender and recipient because often public authorities post their replies back dated by as much as 20-30 days! And yes, sometimes they also just send the covering letter without any copies of documents sought. That makes the weight factor also important. So whether the service is provided under a contract for later payment in bulk or otherwise, can the postal authorities deny an important service that is due to every customer? But the customers seem to have no choice!

nagesh kini

4 years ago

India Post has discontinued UPC service since a long time.

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)