In your interest.
Online Personal Finance Magazine
No beating about the bush.
Various arms of the government are trying to implement biometric attendance system to which employees are protesting
Protest against the implementation of biometric attendance system i.e. an attendance system by way of biometric scanning by the workers and unions is underway in the Jhanjhra Area. Jhanjhra is a fully mechanised mine of Eastern Coalfields Ltd, situated in Raniganj, district Burdwan in West Bengal. The Khan Mazdoor Karmachari Union (IFTU-Sarwahara) (Mine Workers Employee Union (IFTU-Sarwahara)), has not accepted this system, being installed by the management and has decided to struggle against the installation.
Their pamphlet dated 2 September 2014 titled Bio-Metric Attendance: An attempt to enslave the workers reads:
Despite severe protest by the workers and unions, the Jhanjhra Area Management is implementing an anti-worker biometric attendance system i.e. an attendance system by way of biometric scanning of eyes and the whole face. Apart from this biometric attendance system, there is also a hurried move to install CCTV inside the mines and offices and thereafter, provide the workers GPRS-enabled caps so that the management can keep the workers and employees under continuous strict surveillance…Let’s see why it is necessary for the workers to oppose the biometric attendance and CCTV installation.
First, via this system of attendance, the biometric machine will scan our faces and eyes and keep them online on computer/internet. This fact in itself is illegal, dangerous and worth pondering. Why? Firstly, because the scanned photograph can be, intentionally or unintentionally, misused by any agency (the one that will be privy or have access to the data.). For instance, if any terrorist organization gains access to this data, then it can be used with catastrophic repercussion. We would like to raise the question: in such an eventuality, who will be responsible? The situation accentuates in case of female workers and employees.
It will cast severe question mark on their integrity and respect. Keeping these things in mind only, in a similar instance i.e. Aadhaar Card (Unique Identification System) the Supreme Court gave a verdict, in which, it categorically said that forcibly implementing the biometric identification infringes on the fundamental right of privacy. It is a well established covenant world over that without permission no one, not even the Government, can keep physical identification of a person. The constitution of India, as is well known, prohibits any agency/ management/ institution, whatsoever it may be, from keeping such data as physical identification of a person under its control and access without one’s due permission
Second, we do not know, nor the management has informed us on the radiations emitted by the scanning machine, but, on the other hand, the workers will have to undergo scanning of their faces and eyes twice a day. Who knows what will be the impact of it on our eyes and faces! Whether management has undertaken concrete scientific investigation about it, we do not know this, too. We demand to know who will be responsible for the possible long term deadly after-effects of the Scanning Machine’s radiation.
Third, how it will have impact on the extra time involved for the attendance of the worker.
Let’s assume that there are 100 workers standing in front of the machine to punch-in their attendance, if one worker takes minimum of 30 seconds (though in reality it may take much more), then for the last worker it will take extra 50 minutes to punch-in his/her attendance. That means he/she will have to leave for the work 50 minutes before the schedule. Same will be the case for punch-out. Who will be responsible for this wastage of time and who will compensate for this loss?
Fourth, the confidence of workers is vital. In case of the machine malfunctioning or it being out of order, or if it fails to record attendance even after saying “thank you” i.e. in case of false recording of attendance, and hence in case of attendance dispute arising there from, what proof will the worker have in his possession to claim that he was present?
Fifth, similarly what will happen for driller, dresser, explosive carrier and short firer? As is evident from the design of things appearing through biometric, pressure on them to enhance workload is bound to increase.
Sixth, as is becoming as clear as day light from the above facts, it is ludicrous as to why the management is wasting at all a fortune as big as thousands of lakhs or crores of rupees on installing the biometric system. It has been clarified above that there is no worth, as is being claimed over board by the management, in installing this machine; on the contrary, it is anti-workers, dangerous and one that will fuel unnecessary debate and unrest. Actually the main intention of the ECL managements is to have total control over the life of workers that is simply excessive and unnecessary.
Seventh, one of the arguments given by management is that it will increase production. The motive of installing CCTV inside the mines and offices, too, has to be seen in this light. In reality, the intention of the management is to increase the production by way of excessively pressurising the workers. The truth, however, is that precondition of increasing production is that workers must have a joyful family life. It is vital that the worker gets the necessary 8 hours of leisure, their homes are clean and healthy, they get proper transport and there are such safety measures as are necessary to make the mines safe for the workers. But the management seldom thinks of bringing these qualitative changes in. The management has not been able to even provide clean drinking water to the homes of the workers. Electricity supply is simply pathetic and the workers quarters are such that one cannot even use gas cylinder. The state of cleanliness of their colonies is an open secret. Under such inhuman conditions, how can workers increase production?
Biometric attendance is being implemented in Durgapur Steel Plant too, which is predictably inviting protests. By a Circular No. Pers-CF/BARS/2014/508 dated 11th November, 2014 G Sujatha, AGM (Pers-CS), Durgapur Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd, has made procedure of Biometric Attendance Recording System mandatory with insuring disciplinary actions. Hindustan Steel Workers Union, Durgapur Steel Plant are protesting against “illegal and illegitimate capturing of fingerprints of employees and implementation of “Biometric Attendance Recording System” without any lawful authority and in violation of Article-21 of the Constitution of India and other related statutes.” Their letter dated November 17, 2014 to CEO of Durgapur Steel Plant reads:
The Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) and Delhi University College Karamchari Union (DUCKU) are protesting against the installation and implementation of Bio Metric Attendance system as well.
(Gopal Krishna is member of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), which is campaigning against surveillance technologies since 2010)
You may also want to read…
How SEBI went soft on market manipulators of the Pyramid Saimira shares, while its actions destroyed the company
On 26th November, the Securities & Exchange Board of India (SEBI) announced an e-auction of the property of the controversial PS Saminathan, promoter of Pyramid Saimira Theatres Limited (PSTL), a publicly listed company. SEBI said that Mr Saminathan and his wife Uma had failed to pay up a penalty of over Rs1 crore leading to their property being attached and auctioned to recover the penalty, under SEBI’s newly acquired powers.
The PSTL case goes back to 2008, when a market operator named Nirmal Kotecha, who is or was the co-promoter of PSTL, had used a forged SEBI letter planted in the media to make significant and undue profits. SEBI launched an exciting investigation, where, for the first time, it used call origination data from cell-phone operators to trace those involved.
Among the many facts that emerged later was that the forged letter was an inside job by a SEBI manager colluding with Mr Kotecha. Moneylife’s persistent effort, followed by a question in parliament by Rajeev Chandrasekhar, brought this fact into the public domain. No action has been taken against the manager, who, when last heard of, was merely suspended pending inquiry. A journalist from The Economic Times, Rajesh Unnikrishnan, who was close to Nirmal Kotecha and had helped plant the story in two newspapers, was named in the SEBI investigation. So were Viral Doshi, Nirmal Kotecha’s wife, and other members of his family whose bank accounts were used to route payments.
A couple of years ago, Mr Kotecha sought a meeting with me and came to Moneylife office. I had assumed that his purpose was to tell me his side of the story and claim that he was wrongly targeted. To my surprise, he wasn’t even particularly interested in discussing the investigation. Typically, having banned 200-odd entities through an interim order, SEBI’s investigations continued at a leisurely pace.
SEBI, finally, completed investigation against five key entities connected with Mr Kotecha only in January 2014; of these, four others, including two of Mr Kotecha’s companies, were released from the bar on trading; some others had been let off much earlier. SEBI also ‘initiated proceedings’ against Nirmal Kotecha; but it would probably be safe to say that he is unlikely to be punished or absolved anytime soon.
However, Mr Kotecha’s wife, Viral Doshi, decided to contest the indefinite bar on her capital market activities. She approached the securities appellate tribunal (SAT) asking it to direct SEBI to pass final orders in her case. In early March 2014, SAT asked SEBI to decide in 45 days; the regulator sprang into action less than a month later and lifted the ban on Viral Doshi. SEBI’s order said that, although she was guilty of aiding and abetting her husband’s fraudulent activities, her debarment for four years was punishment enough. This argument has been used to let off most of the Kotecha group companies.
Meanwhile, look at what happened to PS Saminathan and PSTL, which, at one time, employed thousands of persons and had operations in six countries. PSTL’s management has been accused of dubious accounting, false corporate announcements and allotment of warrants to the promoter Mr Saminathan, without payment.
Clearly, this was a fit case to force a change in management under the Companies Act rather than shut down a listed company, hurting the interests of investors and employees. Curiously, however, SEBI and the Supreme Court seemed to prefer a shutdown.
While holding no brief for anyone accused of market manipulation, the PSTL case seems bizarre, when you consider that the Anil Ambani group got away with paying Rs50 crore, no admission of guilt and a very opaque consent order, after being caught channelling over Rs1,000 crore into Indian stocks by routing it via Mauritius-based Pluri Emerging Companies Cell E.
In fact, the UK regulator imposed stiffer fines and penalties on those involved, including a fund manager called Sachin Karpe, than our regulator. But even that didn’t embarrass SEBI which maintained a stoic silence. The very same investigators who handled PSTL had also gone overseas to investigate the Anil Ambani group’s transactions. As an investor standing on the sidelines and watching the investigation and disciplinary processes of India’s market regulator, does it inspire confidence?