Amendment in Standing Orders for implementation of Bio-metric Attendance System

Madhu sir, you know well, Unions will sure to object introduction of bio-metric attendance marking for obvious reasons. Especially it will create problems for union functionaries who move around freely without work or even they won't step into the punching gates, that you know very well. Instances have been noted, some even go out and concentrate on their side businesses, money lending etc, also heard some even work elsewhere by marking present here misusing their positions in union. These employees who sees many inconveniences won't tolerate, tampering the machine itself as these became the cause curtailing their free movement during working hours. When I was with a mining co. some time in 90's we tried to introduce bio-metric using our internal telephone lines but due to non-cooperation of workers/union this project was drop after trial run.

Sir, you are absolutely right—the Union has several vested interests.
However, this Union is not directly opposing the biometric attendance system. Instead, they have taken an indirect approach by demanding changes to the Standing Orders before its implementation. They are well aware that with multiple unions in operation, reaching a consensus on amending the Standing Orders will be challenging.

Bengal, especially Calcutta is well known for active unions in establishments irrespective of man power strength. Nevertheless, if the employer has the will there is way to carried out such measures for better labour admin. But still I strongly suggest you should go ahead with amendment to SO. Once the amendments are certified and implementation commences there will be unrest, even they might raise industrial dispute which once referred to ALC for conciliation where objections could be overcome.
What's your man power strength ? How many HR specialists are with you, is it commensurate with the requirement?

Standing Orders do not prohibit marking of attendance through biometric system.

But before introducing a new system, the following needs to be taken into consideration -
1) Hold a meeting or series of meetings with local trade unions and take them into confidence. They will oppose, but the management has to make itself clear and loud that their decision is final and irrevocable. The Union leaders should co-operate with the management for smooth IR. I, myself, was in a large PSU (Coal). We introduced biometric successfully but with great efforts.
2) Before actually introducing biometric system, a data bank needs to be created for each section/shop/ department, as the structure of the establishment may be. Then each and every employee including managerial personnel have to enrolled in biometric system.
3) A trial run will have to be done comparing the physical attendance and biometric system generated report to match the results. Once it is felt that system is full proof now, the physical attendance system should be discontinued.
4) A leverage window will have to be provided giving the shop/floor incharge authority to allow late attendance, for a maximum number of 2-3 days per employees in a month. This will help maintaining smooth IR and work atmosphere.

Hope this will be effective .

Should you feel to have more guidance, you may contact me through email at arunjain.ncl@gmail.com.

AK Jain
Retired Manager (HR)
Coal India Ltd

Standing Orders do not prohibit marking of attendance through biometric system.

But before introducing a new system, the following needs to be taken into consideration -
1) Hold a meeting or series of meetings with local trade unions and take them into confidence. They will oppose, but the management has to make itself clear and loud that their decision is final and irrevocable. The Union leaders should co-operate with the management for smooth IR. I, myself, was in a large PSU (Coal). We introduced biometric successfully but with great efforts.
2) Before actually introducing biometric system, a data bank needs to be created for each section/shop/ department, as the structure of the establishment may be. Then each and every employee including managerial personnel have to enrolled in biometric system.
3) A trial run will have to be done comparing the physical attendance and biometric system generated report to match the results. Once it is felt that system is full proof now, the physical attendance system should be discontinued.
4) A leverage window will have to be provided giving the shop/floor incharge authority to allow late attendance, for a maximum number of 2-3 days per employees in a month. This will help maintaining smooth IR and work atmosphere.
4) There is no need for change in the Standing Orders. Only a notice of change in Attendance system is to be displayed on notice boards under provisions of ID Act.

Hope this will be effective .

Should you feel to have more guidance, you may contact me through email at arunjain.ncl@gmail.com.

AK Jain
Retired Manager (HR)
Coal India Ltd

Respected Madhu Sir,
Sir, I apologize for my lack of understanding, but based on a layman's reading of Section 20(b) of the ID Act, it appears that when the FOC is drawn and received by the Appropriate Government, the conciliation process ends. So in my understanding before the matter is referred to CGIT/Labour Court, we have a window to implement Bio matric attendance system without attracting violation of sec-33 of I D Act. Pl correct me.
Respected A K Jain Sir,
Thank you for your guidance. The Labour Authorities in Dhanbad advised me in the same manner. However, the ALC(C) of our region has not taken our justifications into account and has registered an ID case. Additionally, we were restricted from implementing the trial run, citing a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act. Now we are waiting for the conciliation scheduled to be held in this week,

True. But the decisions of Andheri Marol Kurla Bus Service Vs The State Of Bombay (1959(1)LLJ 236 SC) , Workers of the Industry Colliery, Dhanbad Vs. Management of the Industry Colliery, (1953) S.C.R. 428 ) and Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Asansol Vs. New Beerbhoom Coal Co. Ltd, were different. In these cases, the Court have invoked section 33(1).