I work in a PSU Iron Ore Mine, and we are going to implement a Biometric Attendance System for non-executive workers in line with DGMS recommendations and as agreed upon in a bipartite agreement with central trade unions.
However, one union, which is not a signatory to the bipartite agreement, has raised an objection that the biometric attendance system cannot be implemented unless a clause for biometric attendance recording is incorporated into the Standing Orders through an amendment. The biometric attendance system has already been implemented in all our units without amending the respective Standing Orders.
I would like to solicit the views of members of the group on this matter
From India, Calcutta
1However, one union, which is not a signatory to the bipartite agreement, has raised an objection that the biometric attendance system cannot be implemented unless a clause for biometric attendance recording is incorporated into the Standing Orders through an amendment. The biometric attendance system has already been implemented in all our units without amending the respective Standing Orders.
I would like to solicit the views of members of the group on this matter
From India, Calcutta
Whenever a change is solicited, it is good to formally announce it by way of a 9A notice (notice u/s 9A of the ID Act) and it is not necessary that it should be reflected in the standing orders. But in future, if any person is found not marking attendance by means of biometric device, and you have to initiate a disciplinary action against him, you will face difficulties because you cannot take it as a misconduct mainly because it is not mentioned anywhere in the Standing Orders. Therefore, it is always good that you amend the standing orders and bring the new system under the clause of "marking attendance". You should also include "failure to mark attendance electronically/ biometric is a misconduct". Let the Union win one step by including the biometric system as per their demand and then let them go back one step by getting the above added to misconducts.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
I would suggest an amendment to SO will serve all purposes and to avoid complications like this in future. But still I would insist there shall be provisions to store the data, retrievable in future for many years (no one can say for how many it may be required, especially when wage arrears have to be worked out after elapse of 4-10 yrs and for computation of other F&F settlements). A printed records, though outdated in the era of digital dispensation, will be handy in cases of disputes, claims involving conciliation, court cases.
Over view: Going by my 35 yrs service in a very big mines, I wish to know, you have an elected & recognised Union representing all the work force. If so have you examined whether a bipartite agreement with the elected union would be sufficient to get the amendments to the SO certified by the CLC/ALC and as per the provisions of MMRD/Mines Act to give effect to the development in introducing bio-metric attendance recording? Of course agreement with all your regd.unions would be a better option than signing only with recognised union (this option is exercised when wage settlement is arrived at).
From India, Bangalore
Over view: Going by my 35 yrs service in a very big mines, I wish to know, you have an elected & recognised Union representing all the work force. If so have you examined whether a bipartite agreement with the elected union would be sufficient to get the amendments to the SO certified by the CLC/ALC and as per the provisions of MMRD/Mines Act to give effect to the development in introducing bio-metric attendance recording? Of course agreement with all your regd.unions would be a better option than signing only with recognised union (this option is exercised when wage settlement is arrived at).
From India, Bangalore
Dear Friend,
The opinion of the other union is genuine and as per the law. The SO is the constitution for the organization, the organisation or the employees are governed as per the written & approved guidelines. In violation is termed as misconduct by the both employer and employee.
The biometric attendance is change system of attendance making than the ongoing attendance recording. Therefore, as per the section 9 A of the ID Act it is not necessary to amendment the standing orders.
The DGMS can suggest to adopt the attendance by means of biometric but can't direct, reason is simple nothing such is mentioned thre in the Mines Act.
You prepare the rules for biometric attendance (procedures, conducts, and misconduct) send to the LEO/DLC for ammendment. Prior to amendment call all the unions are operating in mines other than the recognised union prepare the amendment note of an agreement signed, this too shall serve your purpose till SO gets aproved
From India, Mumbai
The opinion of the other union is genuine and as per the law. The SO is the constitution for the organization, the organisation or the employees are governed as per the written & approved guidelines. In violation is termed as misconduct by the both employer and employee.
The biometric attendance is change system of attendance making than the ongoing attendance recording. Therefore, as per the section 9 A of the ID Act it is not necessary to amendment the standing orders.
The DGMS can suggest to adopt the attendance by means of biometric but can't direct, reason is simple nothing such is mentioned thre in the Mines Act.
You prepare the rules for biometric attendance (procedures, conducts, and misconduct) send to the LEO/DLC for ammendment. Prior to amendment call all the unions are operating in mines other than the recognised union prepare the amendment note of an agreement signed, this too shall serve your purpose till SO gets aproved
From India, Mumbai
While making standing orders don't provide only one type of attendance marking. Make it discretional for management. Like " workmen shall mark their attendance by signing in the attendance register or..........or ....by any other means as decided by the management "
In this case there is no need of amendment to standing order.
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
In this case there is no need of amendment to standing order.
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Thank you, sirs, for your valuable inputs. I’d like to share some updates.
Our Standing Orders include a clause stating: ‘All workmen shall comply with instructions issued from time to time regarding the recording of time of arrival at work, departure from the workplace, period of duty, hours of work, etc., which will be notified on the notice boards.’
My superiors believe this clause provides sufficient authority to implement a Biometric Attendance System without amending the Standing Orders. I have presented this argument before the conciliation officer. Let's see.
From India, Calcutta
Our Standing Orders include a clause stating: ‘All workmen shall comply with instructions issued from time to time regarding the recording of time of arrival at work, departure from the workplace, period of duty, hours of work, etc., which will be notified on the notice boards.’
My superiors believe this clause provides sufficient authority to implement a Biometric Attendance System without amending the Standing Orders. I have presented this argument before the conciliation officer. Let's see.
From India, Calcutta
It's also important to comply with the provisions of the Mines Rules, relevant clauses of which are extracted as below:
xxxxxx
Union of India -
77. Register of employees
.-The register required by sub-section (1) of section 48 shall be maintained in Form B, [keeping separate page for each person employed in the mine] [ Inserted by G.S.R. 656, dated 5.6.1980 (w.e.f. 1.10.1980).].[77-A. Identity tokens [Inserted by G.S.R. 656, dated 5.6.1980 (w.e.f. 1.10.1980). ].-
(1)(a) The owner, agent or manager of a mine shall issue, free of cost, to every person employed in the mine, a metal token (hereinafter referred to as token), bearing a number and other particulars by which such person may be identified:Provided that if any other equally effective system of identification is in force in any mine and the Chief Inspector is satisfied of the same, he may exempt such mine from the operation of this rule, subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose.
(b)No person employed in a mine shall enter or be permitted to enter for work in any part of a mine unless he carries on his person the token issued to him.
(c)The token shall be of such durable and strong material as cannot be easily damaged or defaced.
(d)The token shall be carried by an employee or his person during the time he is on duty.
(e)Where a token is damaged, defaced or lost, due to reasons other than the fault or negligence of the employee concerned, a duplicate token shall be issued forthwith to such employee free of charge and such duplicate token shall be stamped "DUPLICATE".
(f)Where a token is damaged, defaced or lost due to the fault or negligence of the employee concerned, a duplicate token stamped "DUPLICATE", shall be issued forthwith to such employee and such employee shall be liable to pay fifty per cent of the cost of the duplicate token issued to him.
(2)The token number and other particulars by which the employee may be identified, together with a passport size photograph, shall be entered in the register in Form B prescribed under
Section 78 in The Mines Rules, 1955.
The register required by sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act shall be maintained in Form K].
78. Register of daily attendance
.-(1) The registers required by sub-section (4) of section 48 of persons employed in the mine (a) below ground, (b) in open-cast workings and (c) above ground shall be maintained in Forms C, D and E respectively.
(2)The entries in the register maintained in Form C shall be made at the entrance or entrances to the mine, at the time when a person against whose name the entry is made enters or leaves the mine.
(3)The entries in the registers maintained in Forms D and E shall be made at suitable points on the premises of the mine with reasonable despatch, at the commencement and end of the period of work.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
So far as I know these provisions have not been amended, as such it may be necessary that your extant procedure satisfy these stipulations.
Also refer to the SO of a Coalmines (clause 7 on page 6) so far as recording of attendance is concerned for your guidance (link :
https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=&rct=j&sa=U&url=https://www.mahanadicoal.in/standing_order/pdf/sde_order.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjH94n8yvmKAxXlSmwGHelVMvQ QFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw1jtuMuNXpi_s-hnL7oyvbl)
From India, Bangalore
xxxxxx
Union of India -
77. Register of employees
.-The register required by sub-section (1) of section 48 shall be maintained in Form B, [keeping separate page for each person employed in the mine] [ Inserted by G.S.R. 656, dated 5.6.1980 (w.e.f. 1.10.1980).].[77-A. Identity tokens [Inserted by G.S.R. 656, dated 5.6.1980 (w.e.f. 1.10.1980). ].-
(1)(a) The owner, agent or manager of a mine shall issue, free of cost, to every person employed in the mine, a metal token (hereinafter referred to as token), bearing a number and other particulars by which such person may be identified:Provided that if any other equally effective system of identification is in force in any mine and the Chief Inspector is satisfied of the same, he may exempt such mine from the operation of this rule, subject to such conditions as he may deem fit to impose.
(b)No person employed in a mine shall enter or be permitted to enter for work in any part of a mine unless he carries on his person the token issued to him.
(c)The token shall be of such durable and strong material as cannot be easily damaged or defaced.
(d)The token shall be carried by an employee or his person during the time he is on duty.
(e)Where a token is damaged, defaced or lost, due to reasons other than the fault or negligence of the employee concerned, a duplicate token shall be issued forthwith to such employee free of charge and such duplicate token shall be stamped "DUPLICATE".
(f)Where a token is damaged, defaced or lost due to the fault or negligence of the employee concerned, a duplicate token stamped "DUPLICATE", shall be issued forthwith to such employee and such employee shall be liable to pay fifty per cent of the cost of the duplicate token issued to him.
(2)The token number and other particulars by which the employee may be identified, together with a passport size photograph, shall be entered in the register in Form B prescribed under
Section 78 in The Mines Rules, 1955.
The register required by sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act shall be maintained in Form K].
78. Register of daily attendance
.-(1) The registers required by sub-section (4) of section 48 of persons employed in the mine (a) below ground, (b) in open-cast workings and (c) above ground shall be maintained in Forms C, D and E respectively.
(2)The entries in the register maintained in Form C shall be made at the entrance or entrances to the mine, at the time when a person against whose name the entry is made enters or leaves the mine.
(3)The entries in the registers maintained in Forms D and E shall be made at suitable points on the premises of the mine with reasonable despatch, at the commencement and end of the period of work.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
So far as I know these provisions have not been amended, as such it may be necessary that your extant procedure satisfy these stipulations.
Also refer to the SO of a Coalmines (clause 7 on page 6) so far as recording of attendance is concerned for your guidance (link :
https://www.google.com/url?esrc=s&q=&rct=j&sa=U&url=https://www.mahanadicoal.in/standing_order/pdf/sde_order.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjH94n8yvmKAxXlSmwGHelVMvQ QFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw1jtuMuNXpi_s-hnL7oyvbl)
From India, Bangalore
Sirs,
Further update on the issue:
1. The objection raised by the Union, as mentioned in earlier posts, has been converted into an ID case by the Labour Authorities, despite pointing out the existing clause in the Standing Orders: "Workmen shall mark their attendance by signing in the attendance register or by any other means as decided by the management."
2.The Labour Authorities have prohibited the implementation of the Biometric Attendance System, citing Section 33 of the ID Act.
3.A conciliation has been scheduled next week by the Labour Authorities, and we anticipate the failure of conciliation (FOC).
Given these circumstances, we infer that since the conciliation proceedings will conclude with the drawing of the FOC, we can proceed with the implementation of the Biometric Attendance System by issuing a Notice. Since the conciliation proceedings will have concluded, there should no longer be any prohibition concerning a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act.
Is the assumption correct? I would request the respected forum members to comment.
From India, Calcutta
Further update on the issue:
1. The objection raised by the Union, as mentioned in earlier posts, has been converted into an ID case by the Labour Authorities, despite pointing out the existing clause in the Standing Orders: "Workmen shall mark their attendance by signing in the attendance register or by any other means as decided by the management."
2.The Labour Authorities have prohibited the implementation of the Biometric Attendance System, citing Section 33 of the ID Act.
3.A conciliation has been scheduled next week by the Labour Authorities, and we anticipate the failure of conciliation (FOC).
Given these circumstances, we infer that since the conciliation proceedings will conclude with the drawing of the FOC, we can proceed with the implementation of the Biometric Attendance System by issuing a Notice. Since the conciliation proceedings will have concluded, there should no longer be any prohibition concerning a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act.
Is the assumption correct? I would request the respected forum members to comment.
From India, Calcutta
No. If the conciliation fails, the matter will be referred to tribunal for adjudication and section 33 covers the proceedings before the Labour Court or Tribunal also. But I am afraid, why the Union should object the implementation of bio metric system? is it not an evidence that they have been manipulating the physical attendance marking system? I think before the conciliation officer you should take this and say that the way in which the Union objects to biometric system clearly establishes that they have been enjoying the benefits of late coming, early leaving and abstaining from workplace without marking leave for the last so many years, and when the new system comes in to place they will be monitored thoroughly. You should also tell that the Labour Officer should not have entertained the objection when the standing order clearly says that any new system could be put in place. Also, there was a time when the workers used to queue up to collect their wages. Now everybody is getting their wages through banks. Did anybody object to that??????
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals. CiteHR connects professionals facing similar challenges, leveraging a vast knowledge base (100K+ downloads, 150K+ discussions) and targeted emails to engage experts in solving issues.
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central (Amendment) Rules, 2018.pdf
Draft Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Punjab (Haryana Amendment) Rules 2018.docx