Biometric Attendance System in Mines: How to Handle Union Objections Without Amending Standing Orders?

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.

Objection from a Non-Signatory Union

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.

Whenever a change is solicited, it is good to formally announce it by way of a Section 9A notice (notice under Section 9A of the ID Act). It is not necessary that it should be reflected in the standing orders. However, in the future, if any individual is found not marking attendance by means of a biometric device, and you have to initiate disciplinary action against them, you may face difficulties. This is because you cannot consider it as misconduct mainly because it is not mentioned anywhere in the Standing Orders.

Therefore, it is advisable to amend the standing orders and incorporate the new system under the clause of "marking attendance." You should also specify that "failure to mark attendance electronically/biometrically is considered misconduct." Give the Union a concession by including the biometric system as per their demand, and then offset it by adding the above as a misconduct.

Thank you.

I would suggest an amendment to the Standing Orders (SO) that will serve all purposes and help avoid complications like this in the future. However, I would still insist that provisions be made to store data, retrievable in the future for many years, as no one can predict for how long it may be required, especially when wage arrears have to be calculated after 4-10 years and for the computation of other Full and Final (F&F) settlements. Printed records, though outdated in the era of digital dispensation, will be handy in cases of disputes and claims involving conciliation or court cases.

Overview

Based on my 35 years of service in a large mine, I would like to inquire if you have an elected and recognized union representing all the workforce. If so, have you examined whether a bipartite agreement with the elected union would be sufficient to have the amendments to the SO certified by the Chief Labour Commissioner (CLC)/Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC) and in accordance with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (MMRD)/Mines Act to implement the introduction of biometric attendance recording? Of course, reaching an agreement with all your registered unions would be a better option than signing only with the recognized union, as this option is exercised during wage settlements.

Thank you.

Dear Friend, The opinion of the other union is genuine and as per the law. The SO is the constitution for the organization; the organization and the employees are governed as per the written and approved guidelines. Violation is termed as misconduct by both the employer and the employee.

Biometric Attendance System and Legal Considerations

The biometric attendance system is a change from the ongoing attendance recording. Therefore, as per Section 9A of the ID Act, it is not necessary to amend the standing orders. The DGMS can suggest adopting attendance by means of biometric but cannot direct; the reason is simple - nothing of that sort is mentioned in the Mines Act.

Steps to Implement Biometric Attendance

You should prepare the rules for biometric attendance (procedures, conduct, and misconduct) and send them to the LEO/DLC for amendment. Prior to amending, call all the unions operating in mines, other than the recognized union, to prepare an amendment note of an agreement signed. This too shall serve your purpose until the SO gets approved.

While making standing orders, don't provide only one type of attendance marking. Make it discretionary for management. For example, "Workmen shall mark their attendance by signing in the attendance register or by any other means as decided by the management." In this case, there is no need for an amendment to the standing order.

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.

This is okay. If this clause is already available, you can go ahead with the biometric system without further amendment to standing orders but by giving only a notice.

It's also important to comply with the provisions of the Mines Rules, relevant clauses of which are extracted as below:

Union of India - 77. Register of employees

The register required by sub-section (1) of section 48 shall be maintained in Form B, [keeping a 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 a 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 on 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 an 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 an employee, and such an employee shall be liable to pay fifty percent 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 dispatch, at the commencement and end of the period of work.

So far as I know, these provisions have not been amended. As such, it may be necessary that your extant procedure satisfies these stipulations. Also, refer to the SO of Coalmines (clause 7 on page 6) regarding the recording of attendance for your guidance (link: https://www.mahanadicoal.in/standing.../sde_order.pdf).

Dear 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.

No. If the conciliation fails, the matter will be referred to the tribunal for adjudication, and section 33 covers the proceedings before the Labour Court or Tribunal as well. But I am afraid, why should the Union object to the implementation of the biometric system? Is it not evidence that they have been manipulating the physical attendance marking system?

Concerns about the Union's Objection

I think before the conciliation officer, you should address this and point out that the way in which the Union objects to the biometric system clearly establishes that they have been taking advantage of late coming, early leaving, and absenteeism without marking leave for many years. With the new system in place, they will be monitored thoroughly.

Role of the Labour Officer

You should also mention that the Labour Officer should not have entertained the objection when the standing order clearly states that any new system could be implemented. Additionally, there was a time when workers used to queue up to collect their wages. Now, everyone receives their wages through banks. Did anyone object to that?

Madhu sir, you know well, unions will surely object to the introduction of biometric attendance marking for obvious reasons. Especially, it will create problems for union functionaries who move around freely without work or even refuse to step into the punching gates, as you are well aware. Instances have been noted where some even engage in side businesses such as money lending, and there are rumors of others working elsewhere while marking themselves present here, thus misusing their positions in the union. These employees who encounter many inconveniences will not tolerate the tampering of the machines themselves, as this restricts their freedom of movement during working hours.

When I was with a mining company in the 90s, we attempted to introduce biometric systems using our internal telephone lines. However, due to the non-cooperation of workers/unions, this project was dropped after a 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 manpower strength. Nevertheless, if the employer has the will, there is a way to carry out such measures for better labor administration. But still, I strongly suggest you should go ahead with amendments to the Standing Orders (SO). Once the amendments are certified and implementation commences, there will be unrest; they might even raise industrial disputes, which, once referred to the Assistant Labor Commissioner (ALC) for conciliation, could be overcome.

Questions to Consider

"What's your manpower strength? How many HR specialists are with you? Is it commensurate with the requirement?"

Introduction of Biometric Attendance System

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

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 may oppose, but the management must make it clear and firm that their decision is final and irrevocable. Union leaders should cooperate with the management for smooth industrial relations. I, myself, was in a large PSU (Coal). We introduced biometrics successfully but with great efforts.

2) Before actually introducing the biometric system, a data bank needs to be created for each section/shop/department, as the structure of the establishment may be. Then, every employee, including managerial personnel, must be enrolled in the biometric system.

3) A trial run will have to be done comparing the physical attendance and the biometric system-generated report to match the results. Once it is felt that the system is foolproof, the physical attendance system should be discontinued.

4) A leverage window will have to be provided, giving the shop/floor in-charge authority to allow late attendance for a maximum of 2-3 days per employee in a month. This will help maintain smooth industrial relations and work atmosphere.

Hope this will be effective.

Should you feel the need for more guidance, you may contact me through email at [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons].

Regards, AK Jain
Retired Manager (HR)
Coal India Ltd

Introduction of Biometric Attendance System

Standing Orders do not prohibit the marking of attendance through a biometric system. However, before introducing a new system, the following considerations need to be taken into account:

1) Hold a meeting or series of meetings with local trade unions and take them into confidence. They may oppose, but the management must make it clear and firm that their decision is final and irrevocable. Union leaders should cooperate with management for smooth industrial relations. I, myself, was in a large PSU (Coal) where we introduced biometrics successfully, albeit with great effort.

2) Before actually introducing the biometric system, a data bank needs to be created for each section/shop/department, as per the structure of the establishment. Then, every employee, including managerial personnel, must be enrolled in the biometric system.

3) A trial run should be conducted, comparing the physical attendance and biometric system-generated reports to ensure the results match. Once it is confirmed that the system is foolproof, the physical attendance system should be discontinued.

4) A leverage window should be provided, granting the shop/floor in-charge the authority to allow late attendance for a maximum of 2-3 days per employee per month. This will help maintain smooth industrial relations and a positive work atmosphere.

5) There is no need for a change in the Standing Orders. Only a notice of change in the attendance system needs to be displayed on notice boards under the provisions of the ID Act.

Hope this will be effective.

Should you feel the need for more guidance, you may contact me through email at [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons].

Regards,
AK Jain
Retired Manager (HR)
Coal India Ltd

Respected Madhu 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 the Biometric Attendance System without attracting a violation of Section 33 of the ID Act. Please 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 this week.