Topic: I.R.

+ Trade Unions

Employee Relations at North Delhi Power Ltd. (NDPL)

North Delhi Power Ltd (NDPL) was one of the three electricity-distribution companies (also called the three DISCOMs) that took over the ailing Delhi-Government-owned Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) w.e.f. July 1, 2002. NDPL catered to North and North-West Delhi. BSES, a Reliance-group company, owned the other two companies which took up electricity distribution in the rest of Delhi as per the privatization arrangement. A Joint Action Committee consisting of members from the two existing unions, both of which were recognized by the DVB, signed the tripartite takeover agreement that was devised at the instance of the Delhi Government. These two unions were: the Delhi State Electricity Workers Union (DSEWU), an INTUC-affiliated union; and the Delhi State Electricity Employees Union (DSEEU), which was independent, but in actuality was led by a former dissident from the INTUC union. These two unions were common for all the three DISCOMs. After the takeover, NDPL recognized only the majority union i.e. DSEWU. The non-recognized union (DSEEU) had gradually become almost nonexistent, as its support had steeply declined after the takeover. Even its President, Harish Rawat, had retired from service of BSES. The CEO of NDPL, Anil Sardana, was seen by this companys managerial and supervisory personnel as a change master and charismatic leader. Most of the other members of the NDPL fraternity had an impression of him as passionate, visionary, transparent and ethics-driven in his transformational role. While interacting with the employees after the takeover, he heard an official, V.K. Saxena, in a meeting who was complaining of inadequate training they possessed, which he said was not conducive to doing the work satisfactorily. He immediately appointed Saxena as in-charge of the training function; he had been working as training manager since then. Before the takeover, DVB was in complete red, having accumulated huge losses over the years. Like most other state electricity boards in India, its AT&C (Aggregate Technical and Commercial) losses had reached 53 per cent when the takeover was effected (The AT&C number measures the difference between kwhs supplied to the distribution company and kwhs realized from retail customers). The Delhi Government had to subsidize DVB to the tune of Rs. 1500 crores per year. DVB meter readers were hand-in-glove with power thieves and advised them on how to give a gloss of legality to power theft. Especially the big power thieves were in connivance with other DVB personnel and even Delhi politicians. DVB employees, who enjoyed immunity for their misdemeanours, had built temples inside the corridors and premises of most DVB offices. This was done with a view to preventing the angry public from attacking and damaging the premises when power breakdowns were not attended within a reasonable time. The incidence of corruption amongst DVB employees was very high. Apart from stopping power theft, improving the power situation and enhancing customer satisfaction were some of the key issues that Sardana took as major challenges. On takeover, he suggested to Abhay Saini, NDPLs HR chief, that NDPL should begin its change and transformational agenda with an enquiry into the assets held by the meter readers. To this Saini suggested that NDPL should focus itself more on future rather than the past. He opined that the companys role vis a vis the employees should involve making efforts to bring the DVBscheme employees into the core values of NDPL. A broad agreement was reached on this strategy.

NDPL soon devised its vision of becoming the most preferred and admired energy company. As per the tripartite agreement, the three DISCOMs were to reduce the AT&C losses from 53 per cent at the time of acquisition to 20 per cent by 30 June 2007. Under Sardanas leadership, the HR department designed and implemented several HR interventions, which among others included: use of performance management, need-based training, innovative welfare measures, proactive grievance redressal, installation of the HRIS, and installation of joint interaction forum (JIF). Saini and his HR department worked very hard to articulate and implement an appropriate HR strategy for the company in consonance with the core values of the Tatas. Rightsizing and Reorganization One of the earliest initiatives for improving performance by the company was rightsizing. As per the MOU signed at the time of the acquisition, NDPL inherited 5368 employees from the DVB. It devised an attractive voluntary retirement scheme (VRS). Out of the total DVB workforce, 1794 employees sought retirement under the VRS. This included 90 per cent of the meter readers. NDPL gave option to the former DVB employees to move to the new scheme (called the NDPL scheme). Only 16 employees opted for this switchover. The recognized union was involved in the rightsizing process throughout, even as the common worker remained continuously apprehensive. The DVB-scheme employees continued to be governed by the old DVB-pay-structure including payment of dearness allowance (DA) and pension benefits as per the Fifth Pay Commission as applicable to Central Government employees. NDPL employed 600 new employees (hereinafter called NDPL-scheme employee) over a period of three years to various positions with new service conditions. This included 400 engineers to facilitate the operations and maintenance work, and 20 fresh or experienced MBAs in different functional areas. There was a big difference between the gross pay of the employees belonging to the two schemes; the emoluments of NDPL employees being in consonance with the corporate sector and those of DVB-scheme employees being similar to government employees. Lately, this apparent class difference between the two had caused problems in the working of the company. Rightsizing was supplemented by a complete restructuring and reorganization. The company inherited a chaotic DVB structure. DVB had some 150 employees in its personnel department who were mainly handling employees service files, and their salary and benefits-related matters. There was no training department. Most employees had never seen a training hall. NDPL replaced it with its HR department, which got into rationalizing HR procedures, manuals and policies. The vision devised for the HR department was to create a learning organization which nurtures talent and innovation, and provides competitive environment that makes NDPL the most favoured company to work for. After considerable efforts, the HRIS (human resource information system) was installed. The company oriented the organization structure to the needs of the customer. It increased the number of circles from 2 to 5; districts from 10 to 12; and zones from 40 to 46. It re-defined the structure to ensure the companys 24 hour accountability to the consumer. The HR department undertook a massive task of writing the job descriptions (JDs) and key result areas (KRAs) for different positions. Almost all designations, which smacked of hierarchy consciousness, were re-christened. Thus the designations like executive engineer, assistant engineer, superintendent, inspector, etc. were changed. The new designations were manager, assistant manager, office associate, work attendant, and so on. Re-designation aroused considerable resistance from most DVB-scheme employees including senior officers. On the contrary, some of them felt empowered e.g. when stenographers and daftaries were re-designated as office associates, they felt excited. All meter readers who did not opt for VRS were redeployed to undertake other functions. Efforts at Change of Mindsets and Behaviours

As NDPL proceeded to implement its transformational agenda, it wanted the employees to be oriented to performance excellence and customer satisfaction. Being a Tata company, NDPL also wanted to promote Tata culture by adopting the Tata Business Excellence Model (TBEM). The first major issue was the mode of salary payment. DVB was paying salary to most operative and supervisory cadres in cash. Matters relating to salary-payment used to stagger over more than a week and the issue was seen as one of the key triggers of manpower wastage. The salary register was a 2 feet wide manual, requiring diligent entry, which was often not handled to the satisfaction of the employees. Every month there were 500 to 700 errors in it, which needed a continuous audit system. Several employees were absent from duty all these days, on the excuses related to involvement in salary payment. The company wanted the salary to be disbursed through electronic transfer to bank. But the semi-literate employees had a lot of apprehensions and resisted the new move. Slogans were raised against the management; the union officials joined them half-heartedly. The company kept two retainer-consultants, Mr. Jain and Mr. Malhotra, who had recently retired from the DVB as officers in its personnel department. They were known to have a feel of the employee dynamics and sensitivities. They were seen counselling the employees on the issue of electronic transfer of salary, and even would visit their homes and colonies to convince them. Eventually, the employees relented for an electronic transfer of salary. The DVB-scheme employees initially had resisted the computer system; even senior officers were not happy at the large-scale use of computers. However, they gradually realized its importance. Comprehensive training was organized to make them computer savvy. When they became wellversed in handling these, each one of them brought with him his own PPT presentation in the periodic meetings. A clear sense of competition amongst zones and districts was visible in the tone and tenor of many presentations. Since DVB buildings were in bad shape, massive renovation programmes were undertaken including making most buildings air-conditioned. Employees saw some tangible gains in the changes made; working became more comfortable. Safe and hygienic conditions were provided at the workplace. In the first two years, the company made an investment of Rs. 228 crores against the required Rs.227 crores in buildings and infrastructure improvement including the grids. Quality of work was very poor, necessitating quality training. Training for team-building was designed on the basis of brain-storming sessions. The ultimate goal of each training course was customer satisfaction through reduction in cost of delivered power, supply of reliable and quality power, and improvement in levels of efficiency and accountability. A peer-exchange training program was designed with Baltimore power utility and Columbia power utility in USA. Later on, 32 people were sent to Sri Lanka, Bangla Desh, Hong Kong, Spain, Netherlands, and Nepal to learn how things were managed there by distribution companies. As part of the change of mindset programme, two batches of union leaders were sent to the Tata Steel plant in Jamshedpur in September, 2003 for 10 days each to observe how cheapest steel was made in the world in a climate of harmonious industrial relations among 40,000 employees. A manager remarked These leaders now talk more practical and sensible, and have reflected more positive understanding and cooperation in developing performance culture. Later, these leaders asked the GMHR, When are you sending us to a foreign country for training? Sardana introduced an incentive scheme to promote performance-based culture for employees. Those who successfully achieved their targets were rewarded with appreciation certificates and target-compliance mementos. A bi-annual system of communication from CEO was devised and implemented. Also a Meet the CEO Scheme was introduced wherein each employee could meet the CEO personally and discuss issues and problems related to efficiency or any grievances. An in-house quarterly newsletter named Navodaya was launched in November 2003 which

contained in-house articles and information that the management wanted to deliver to the employees. The company also started a suggestion scheme, but the employees somehow showed inertia in making full use of it. It even provided for sharing of gains from the suggestions. NDPL also had the policy of posting employees mostly near their home to ensure that they remained energetic.

Employee Welfare and Grievance Table 1: Some Major Employee Welfare Initiatives Undertaken by NDPL Pre-takeover August 2004 S.No. Delhi Vidyut Board North Delhi Power Limited 1 Medical claim of indoor patient/ treatment Forty hospitals were empanelled; no payment was being reimbursed by DVB after the required to be made by the employee expenditure was incurred by the employee concerned; the employee had to just show the from his pocket. Identity Card and avail treatment. 2 A Janata Insurance Scheme with a cover value of Rs. One lakh for accidental injuries; premium was paid by the employees. No forum/platform for interaction between management and employee representatives. Time-bound Promotion Scale (TBPS) was being allowed to the eligible employees after considerable lapse of time. Many cases since 1994 onwards were pending. NDPL got every employee insured against work-related accidents for a cover value of Rs. 2.5 lakh at Co.s cost. A Joint Interaction Forum (JIF) launched at the district and circle level; monthly and quarterly meetings of JIF held. Time-bound Promotion Scale cases were updated. All employees who were eligible for TBPS were allowed the same on 30th June and 31st December every yearNo case was pending.

Pathetic working conditions in offices; no A number of buildings renovated; hygienic cleanliness and hygiene maintenance. conditions maintained. Potable drinking water not available in Proper drinking water available in all many District/Zonal offices. District/Zonal offices. Water purifiers were installed or filtered (bottled) water was provided. No gift was given to employees on any A wrist watch was given to every work occasion. charge and contractual employee to commemorate the Raising Day on July 1, 2003. No function was ever held to celebrate the Labour Day was celebrated every year by Labour Day on May 1. observing Industrial Harmony Week; it involved employee participation in it. No sports meets ever organized Sports meets for employees and dependants

8.

Improving the working conditions, welfare facilities and employee care also became some of the important concerns. Table 1 reveals an overview of some of the employee welfare and performance measures that were undertaken by NDPL, and compares them with the pre-takeover situation. In addition, regular camps were organized for free health check-ups with specialist facilities. All employees were served tea twice a day or were paid Rs.125 per month as tea allowance. A scholarship scheme with the upper limit scholarship of Rs.1000 per month per beneficiary was implemented for meritorious children of employees since July 2003. Schemes

were devised and implemented for providing free coaching and computer training to children of the employees. It conducted English-speaking courses for the employees wives. Diwali mela was organized for all employees and their family members. Eye camps, health camps, and blooddonation camps were organized to promote social responsibility amongst employees. The company donated Rs.5 lakhs to an Eye Foundation. It adopted Bawana village as an SOS village situated in North Delhi and paid for books, clothes, toys, etc. for the needy children in this village. A Grievance Handling System was devised. Employees were encouraged to discuss workrelated grievances or concerns and use the grievance procedure which ended at the CEO. One of the most unique features of employee care at NDPL was sarathi, its Employee Helpline for facilitating grievance processing. Any NDPL employee could submit his/her grievance by e-mail or telephone, and sarathi assisted in giving a time-bound reply to him/her and also helped in processing the grievance. Awareness about the use of sarathi was being generated at the forum of the JIF. Sarathi was also aggressively marketed across NDPL through coloured posters to ensure that employees made full use of it. The grievances mostly related to issues like promotion, posting, error in pay-slip, administration-related issues, amenities-related issues in employees colonies, working conditions in offices, overtime, shift timings and shift roasters, and other personnel matters. NDPL was perhaps the first such company in India to have started this kind of a help line. Union-Handling Dynamics NDPL inherited the DVB workforce along with its two unions and seven staff associations. It, however, recognized only the Delhi State Electricity Workers Union (DSEWU), which was the majority union, and not the other one. It also did not recognize any of the seven staff associations. DSEWUs General Secretary, Hira Lal, and the members of the union executive were cooperative with the management in the takeover process, and even after. Barring some minor disturbances, the company had by and large witnessed a peaceful acquisition process. NDPL prioritized improvement in working conditions. Employees saw this as companys concern for orderliness in work organization. People appreciated the management initiatives to create facilities for comfortable work atmosphere. Sardana and Saini took a positive stand on three of the burning issues which were of grave concern to the common employee. This was done partly on advice of Jain and Malhotra, the two NDPL advisors on employee affairs. Perhaps the most complex of the three most contentious issues was of the payment of Rs.10, 000 each to 41 employees widows, whose husbands had died during service of the DVB. A group of employees, with the support of the union, were restless and were protesting on this long-time pending issue of widow fund. Employees were concerned that the settlement should be done from the employee welfare fund set up by DVB which was now the responsibility of the NDPL. They did not want the money to be paid out of the employee fund that was raised by way of deductions from their salaries. Sardana and Saini responded spontaneously. They knew it was a question of only Rs.4 lakhs and agreed to pay it from the companys funds. Sardana declared that before going home that day he wanted to sign those cheques. Jain and Malhotra were in the limelight. Soon after the takeover Sardana was flooded with appeals to settle the issue of uniforms for all workers, the second major issue that was agitating them. DVB had given uniforms to lower-level workers and white-collar staff up to the junior engineer level. Every year truckloads of uniforms were procured and employees were suspended for not wearing them. Supplying uniforms to 5400 employees and getting into issues of size, material, quality, distribution and the related consequences of dissatisfaction with the uniforms became controversial. Sardana knew that the real issue was to get the employees to work and perform, own the accountability, develop a

functioning organizational structure, and get NDPL out of the red. Still, he said to the union: Uniforms would be given only if there was a consensus that it would be compulsory to wear it. I do not want to get into issues like stitching charges, quality and quantity issues, who to be given and who not. I would like to wait and watch the organization out of red. The other option was that the workers could also get monetary compensation, in lieu of the uniform. The union agreed to the latter. There were a series of meetings between Saini and the representatives of the employees along with Jain and Malhotra, the internal consultants. The actual cost was Rs. 1172; the negotiated cost started at Rs.1700 from HR side. After a series of negotiations, the entire body of the union along with the HR managers settled it at Rs.2700, which was frozen for the next three years. Promotion was the third most crucial pending issue; no promotion had taken place since 1992. This was mostly due to lack of funds and the indifferent attitude of DVB officials. Few people had not had a single promotion for the last 30 years. Saini convinced Sardana about the need to take a positive stand on the time-bound promotion issue. Sardana put up the case to the Government of Delhi and Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit. The Government provided the funds for promotions and all 350 cases of time-bound promotions for DVB-scheme employees were cleared. Saini had before him eighty cases of employee discipline. Some 63 of these 80 files of employees involved petty matters. Saini thought, Why should I harass them for petty issues which do not bother me? He transacted with the employees and systematically closed most of the files; only 17 cases of suspension were still open. He closed other files as a matter of goodwill. Since most interest issues were part of the tripartite takeover agreement, whereby the DVBscheme employees had protection of service conditions, there was little role for the union in these matters. Most of its role however related to matters perceived as individual and group grievance. The records of NDPL showed just two demand notices given by the DSEWU. The first one dated may 30, 2003 contained threat for agitation due to three grievances listed in it, which included: transfer of union office-bearers against the tripartite agreement; non-sanction of leave applications of employees; and harassment to workers who were facing enquiry for alleged misconducts. There was no concrete demand or allegation in this charter; it appeared merely symbolic of adversarial function of a union. The second demand charter, submitted on 4 June, 2004 contained ten demands, the prominent among these included: regularization of work-charge staff; appointment on compassionate ground; promotion as per the agreement; terminal benefits for the staff who opted for VRS; and removal of fixed charges for electricity bills from the employees. There was no involvement of the labour department in the discussion of the demand charter. The union leaders were pursuing the matters with the management. The latter demand charter contained two major issues i.e. regularization of work charge staff; and the payment of terminal benefits to those who opted for the VRS. There were 89 employees in the work-charge category. Since their parents/husbands had died in service, the union wanted them to be regularized in the first meeting with the CEO. Sardana insisted that they would be taken only if they upgraded their skills. A special request was made to an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) to help in the matter. It organized a special 12-16 weeks technical training to upgrade the skills of these employees at the companys cost. Many such employees were inducted at higher salaries. For the graduate employees, NDPL insisted on a computer test after the computer training. The employees who cleared the test were regularized. Some employees who wanted to join the clerical grade without the graduate degree were refused. Some went to Delhi court while the names of four were struck from the rolls of the company.

The payment of retirement benefits to employees for the period for which they had rendered service to DVB in the pre-takeover phase was another major issue in the demand charter. It was mainly the responsibility of the Delhi government. After NDPL announced the VRS scheme and some employees opted for it, retirement dues became payable to them. But the Delhi Government could not meet its responsibilities of paying the workers dues even after more than two years of privatization. NDPL had offered to pay its share long time back. This aroused deep resentment among the retired as well as serving employees against the Government. Employees of all DISCOMs organized agitation and dharnas at Raj Ghat against the Governments attitude and the DISCOMs. Interestingly, NDPL management joined them in their protest against the Delhi Government for undue delay. Saini issued a circular to all employees that the raising day would not be celebrated on July 1, 2004 due to non-receipt from the Delhi Government of the retirement benefit by 1797 retired employees. He also issued another circular suggesting that the NDPL fraternity would not celebrate Puja and Diwali festivals in 2004 as a mark of protest against the Delhi Government not releasing the retirement money. Eventually, Delhi Government agreed to release the money for the VRS-scheme beneficiaries, and the matter got settled. Redeployment/downsizing of 160 water women in the DVB-scheme was yet another crucial issue. They had no role in the new organization structure. Their re-training potential towards learning any sort of technical skills was almost negligible. Sardana engaged an NGO to train them in activities such as pickle-making, papad-making, etc. at companys cost. The idea, Sardana claimed, was that they could live a dignified work life and not sit idle. After this training they could engage themselves in these activities and earn some extra money. The union thought that their vocational engagement would lead to their re-deployment elsewhere, thus resulting into compulsory retirement. Sardana clarified that he had no such intention. The union advised the water women not to take this training. Asked to list major issues on which the union had cooperated with NDPL, Saini enumerated them, including re-deployment of manpower; helping build work culture; facilitating cooperation with the common employee; cooperation in new designations; cooperation in settling uniforms issue; unusual support provided by them in setting up the JIF; and cooperation in implementing the overall change agenda. He also recalled: Unions cooperation could be gauged from the peaceful celebration of the May day. Generally unions show black flags to management on that day. But we celebrated Industrial Harmony Week during that period. In fact, we organized several activities during that week including promotion of work culture, effecting need-based transfers, organizing blood-donation camp, slogan competition, and tree plantation. The Joint Interaction Forum The company thought of involving the employees in work related to functioning and progress of the organization through Joint Interaction Forum (JIF) at the district and circle levels. This was an exercise in employee participation in management. The key objective of JIF was to facilitate better consumer services and enhancing the consumer delight. Some of the usual issues discussed at this forum included: workplace hygiene, health, safety, quality, welfare, quality of work, response time, productivity and maintenance issues, non-availability of basic infrastructure, performance-related issues, inputs on improvement of processes at various levels, elimination of waste, lowering costs, information sharing, and skill enhancement of employees through training. It was not meant to discuss issues related on any interest matters such as wages, salary, leave, suspension, dismissal promotions, transfers and any other service-related issues. Monthly and quarterly meetings of JIF were held regularly. The case writer attended one meeting of the central JIF held at a place some 40 kilometres from Delhi, and two meetings of JIF in two different districts. The meetings were cordial. Few leaders from the unrecognized staff

associations occasionally made their points which demonstrated some degree of suppressed dissent. In a central JIF meeting the secretary of the recognized union made a PowerPoint presentation titled: How NDPL Employees Could Contribute towards Greater Efficiency. He admired the company for its proactive policies and for sending the union leaders to Tata Steel at Jamshedpur for obtaining first-hand exposure to situations of unionmanagement cooperation. In all the three meetings that the case writer attended as an observer, a remarkable degree of dignified presence could be perceived from the body language of the representatives of employees as well as the management. The companys HR consultant, Dr. S. N Pandey, who was earlier DirectorIR at Tata Steel, was guiding the working of the JIF. Ripples in The Unions Ranks The impressive working of NDPL got marred by some recent happenings. A serious development emerged in the form of a new leader who challenged the authority of Hira Lal and other union office bearers. Elections to the union were held 5 years ago in which Hira Lal became the general secretary, which was challenged by Harish Rawat, who later formed DSEEU and became its general secretary. The matter was still pending in the Delhi High Court since then. In February, 2005 Kuldip Sharma, a clerk in a BSES company and a proactive INTUC union worker, who was earlier in the Hira Lal camp, called a meeting of the general body of DSWEU and got himself elected as the General Secretary. He also became a party to the High Court case; and had contended that he was the real representative of the employees in the three DISCOMs. The NDPL management continued to recognize Hira Lal and his executive members. About 60 per cent workers were with Kuldip Sharma, and 40 per cent were with Hira Lal group. Sardana was aware of Kuldips strength. Therefore, he instructed the senior management not to ignore Kuldip, who was increasingly becoming powerful. Kuldip alleged that Hira Lal group had lost the support of the rank and file, was hand-in-glove with the NDPL management and had sacrificed the employees interest. This development had caused a storm in the NDPL circles. Kuldip dynamics led to many new developments. In September, 2005, Abhay Saini, GM-HR was transferred as GM-RRG & SPD (Revenue Recovery Group & Single Point Delivery). A new person, Mr. C.N. Naga Kumar was brought from Tata Power on deputation as GM-HR. While Sainis strength was mainly in functional HR and HR strategy, Kumar also had expertise in labour laws and industrial relations matters. What had become a cause of serious worry in NDPL circles was the rising incidence of insubordination and indiscipline. Some cases of assault and heckling of senior officers by supporters of Kuldip group came to notice, but management could not take any meaningful action against them, perhaps due to fear of a flare up. This group became more powerful from the Rehman incident onwards. Rehman was an NDPL-scheme probationer employee in the head office. One day Sanjay Chhibber, a DVB-scheme employee in the same office, provoked Rehman and led to a brawl in which Chhibber, a Kuldip loyalist assaulted Rehman. He called Kuldip and his other supporters to the office. Some slogan-shouting took place against the management. It also became an issue of DVB-scheme employees versus NDPL-scheme employees. They went to Sardanas office and demanded dismissal of Rehman. Saini was in the field. In the heat of the moment, Sardana announced dismissal of Rehman. This incident was in a way the coronation of Kuldips leadership. When asked about the possible reasons for the visible signs of dissent in the unions ranks which led to the above developments, a DVB-scheme manager, who had a good understanding of issues, remarked as follows: No doubt, the general rank-and-file is very happy working for the NDPL, and feels dignified also. The company has on its own solved all problems of the employees. Today, the union has no agenda at all. Compensation matters are all governed by the Takeover

10

Agreement. In alignment with the TATA Culture of care and share, the company has made ex-gratia payment of one months basic salary to all categories of employees including senior managers, which was linked with organizational performance. None of the other similar companies including GENCO, TRANSCO (the two Delhi-governmentowned generation and transmission companies, which were also part of DVB earlier), and the two BSES companies made any such payment. This has led to higher degree of commitment of the employees. In the sphere of welfare, hardly any need of the employees has been left unattended. The common employee has largely changed for the better. Corruption amongst employees has completely ended. The comparative performance of the company speaks for itself. But the biggest mistake of ours was the handling of Kuldip. It was wrong to dismiss Rehman, as he himself was the victim in that episode. We did that because he was a probationer, and could be made a scapegoat for buying momentary peace for the company. This issue has revived DVB days of indiscipline in some sense. This has emboldened Kuldips supporters, which has led to greater number of cases of insubordination. This matter has also to do with the difference that has got created between DVB-scheme employee and the NDPL-scheme employee. NDPL employee remains glued to the computer and is not so conversant with the field realities. When a customer comes with a complaint, instead of dealing with it himself, he puts the DVB man in the front. And, the big difference in the salary package of the officials in the two schemes has also not been taken kindly by the DVB-scheme officials. Of course, the attraction of the pension benefits and job security under the agreement had prevented them to switchover to the NDPL scheme. Only few DVB-scheme employees have got recognition. The employees are not pro-Kuldip, but they are anti-Hira Lal. They think that he was a party to the takeover agreement, and they have lost the glory of the DVB days. The key thing is that the performer-beneficiaries of the NDPL success are somehow fence-sitters and are not taking side of the one who is just and fair. Unless they take proactive stand, it would be difficult to check Kuldip factor. The disgruntled elements, which have lost the opportunity to make money due to the privatization, are now on the rise. Sardana had been constantly assuring the DVB-scheme employees about the companys policies of ethics, fairness, and job security. A DVB-scheme employee however, said his message had not percolated down. He said, The employees remained fearful of losing their jobs, despite the security provided to them by the tripartite agreement. This was not because of any vindictive attitude of the management; but they had pressure of performance on them like it is so in any private organization. It is the unions duty to make the common employee feel comfortable. The DVB-scheme employees could never dream of an over-protected work-life in the new scenario. Performance, Achievements and Challenges NDPL improved its functioning on several operational parameters. The AT&C loss reduced from 53 in July 2002 to 33. 16 per cent on 30 September 2005, which meant reduction of about 20 per cent in a period of 38 months from the takeover. A reduction of one per cent in AT&C loss roughly translated to corresponding gain in companys additional revenue to the tune of at least Rs.22 crores. NDPL earned a net profit after tax of Rs.57 crore for the year 2004-05; in the first year itself it earned a profit of Rs. 22 crore (for the year 2002-03). In fact, Saradana suggested to the Delhi Government in July 2005 not to increase the tariffs for the consumers as NDPL wanted to transfer the benefits resulting from reduced AT&C loss onto the consumers.

11

The company secured the ISO 9001: 2000 certification for Quality Management System from Det Norske Veritas of Netherlands for its five departments: engineering, projects, IT groups of technical services, human resource management, and stores group of operations. And, out of the 150 companies which competed for the top 25 Great Places to Work as per a survey conducted by the Grow Talent Company in 2003, NDPL got the 27th rank. Comprehensive changes took place on HRM front. Speaking of the progress on this front Sardana observed: One of our biggest achievements is that we have been able to secure our right to govern vis--vis our DVB-scheme employees. This category of employee should have no fear psychosis about their job security. Yet the environment is one of accountability. The union cooperation could be secured through our transparent attitude to collective concerns of people, our belief in their legitimate right to play their role, and our decision to take on issues head on rather than avoiding or suppressing them The company got better media response for its performance than had been the case with the two BSES companies. In fact, the other two companies came under severe criticism for nonperformance; so much so they got several warnings from Chief Minister Shiela Dixit. In fact, some NDPL managers had alleged that the BSES had incited Kuldip Sharma to rake up NDPL as the former could not match its performance standard with the latter. The media had reported that of the total breakdowns in Delhi, 92 per cent were in BSES area and 8 per cent were in NDPL area. Sardana continuously interacted with Delhi politicians with a view to changing their attitude towards employees and other issues in the Delhi power sector. Each member of the legislative assembly (MLA) of Delhi was regularly invited to have lunch with the NDPL team. While Sardana looked back at the progress made on various fronts, he was worried about the emergence of the Kuldip syndrome. He was taking stock of the challenges lying ahead of him. He remarked that a big challenge before NDPL was changing the attitude and skill-levels of a large number of DVB-scheme employees. While elaborating on some of the challenges that NDPL was still facing, Sardana observed: We have not yet been able to get 100 percent loyalty of our employees. Commenting on the change of mindsets that had taken place, a general manager observed, We have been able to acclimatize about 50 per cent employees into the NDPL ethos. About 30 per cent are fence-sitters, and about 20 per cent have not changed at all. While the employee behaviour has improved for the better, the contractors staff still needed to be trained and subjected to behaviour-modification exercises. Sardana was wondering how to make the union agree to the need to settle the issue of water women, who had no role in the companys functioning. He was also asking himself how to confront the Kuldip dynamics, avoid any major upheaval in the company, and carry out the transformational agenda further in order to march towards the companys vision. _____________________________ Modified by Mamkoottam; originally written by Debi S. Saini

12

Exhibit I Principal Rights of Approval and Representative Unions under the various State Enactments ID Rajasthan (Amendment) Act, 1958_Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960_Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946__A representative union or, in the absence of any such union, a union which is representative of the employees, can enter into an agreement with the employer, to submit any present of future industrial dispute or class of such disputes to arbitration (Section 10 B) (i) A representative union, has the first preference to act and appear in any proceeding under the Act, on behalf of the employees in an industry. No individual, can appear in any proceeding in which a representative union has appeared. The Labour Officer, is also not to appear in any proceedings, nor to investigate the grievances of employees, when there is a representative union (Section 27, 28 & 30) (ii) Joint Committees are to be constituted, only with the consent of the representative union (Section 36) (iii) A representative union, or where there is no representative union, a union representative of employees can enter into an agreement with the employer, to submit any present, or future industrial dispute or any class or classes of such disputes, for arbitration by a Labour Court, Industrial Court, Board, etc (Section 49). A representative union can also demand reference to any industrial dispute to arbitration (Section 52). (iv) Management cannot dismiss, discharge or reduce any employee in status or punish him, merely because he is an officer or member of a representative union, or a union which has applied for recognition as a representative union (Section 3) (v) In the case of agreements, awards, etc., in which a representative union is a party, the State Govt may, after giving the parties affected, an opportunity of being heard, direct that such agreements, etc., shall be binding on such other employers and employees, in such industry, in that local area, as may be specified (Section 97)_1. Approved Union: Under certain conditions laid down by the State Government members / oficers of an approved union have a right and are to be permitted by the management concerned to: collect sums payable by members to the unions, on the premises where wages are to paid to them; put up, or cause to be put up, a notice board on the premises of the undertakings, in which its members are employed, and affix, or cause to be affixed, notices thereon; hold discussions on the premises of the undertaking with its members, and to discuss with the employer or his representative the grievances of its members, for the purpose of prevention, or settlement of an industrial dispute; and inspect, if necessary, any place in the undertaking, where any of its members is employed (Section 25) 2. Representative Union: A representative union has the first preference to appear or act in any proceeding under the Act, as the representative of employees in an industry in any local area. Next in order of importance, is a qualified or primary union (Section 30) No individual is to be permitted to appear in any proceeding, wherein; there is a representative of employees (Section 32). Nor can a Labour Officer appear in any Proceedings in which the employees, who are parties thereto, are represented by representative union.

13

Any employer and a representative union, or any other registered union may submit a dispute for arbitration (Section 66) A representative union, is entitled to make a special application to the labour court, to hold an enquiry as to whether a strike, lockout, etc, is illegal (Section 79). Management cannot dismiss, discharge or reduce any employee of such a union, or punish him in any other manner, merely because he is an officer or member of registered union, or a union which has applied for recognition under the Act (Section 101) In the case of agreements, awards, etc., in which a repre-sentative union is a party, the State Govt may after giving the parties affected an opportunity of being heard, direct that such agreements, etc., shall be binding upon such other employers or employees as may be specified (Section 114). EXHIBIT - II Inter-Union Code of Conduct We, the representatives of four Central Labour Organisations, namely INTUC, AITUC, HMS & UTUC agree to observe the following basic principles for maintaining harmonious inter-union relations: Every employee in an industry or unit shall have the freedom and right to join a union of his choice. No coercion shall be exercised in this matter There shall be no dual membership of unions. (In the case of Representative Unions, this principle needs further examination). There shall be unreserved acceptance of and respect for, democratic functioning of trade unions. There shall be regular and democratic elections of executive bodies and office-bearers of trade unions. Ignorance and/or backwardness of workers shall not be exploited by any organisation. No organisation shall make excessive or extravagant demands. Casteism, communalism and provincialism shall be eschewed by all unions There shall be no violence, coercion, intimidation, or personal vilification in inter-union dealings. All Central Labour Organisations shall combat the formation or continuance of Company Unions. EXHIBIT - III Code of Discipline in Industries To Maintain Discipline in Industry (both in public and private sectors) There has to be (i) a just recognition by employers and workers, of the rights and responsibilities of either party, as defined by the laws and agreements (including bipartite and tripartite agreements arrived at all levels from time to time) and (ii) a proper and willing discharge by either party of its obligations, consequent on such recognition.

14

The Central and State Governments, on their part, will arrange to examine and set right, any shortcomings in the machinery, they constitute for the administration of labour laws. To ensure better discipline in industry. Management and Union(s) Agree that no unilateral action should be taken in connection with any industrial matter, and that disputes should be settled at appropriate level; that the existing machinery for settlement of disputes should be utilised with the utmost expedition; that there should be no strike or lock-out without notice; that affirming their faith in democratic principles, they bind themselves to settle all future differences, disputes and grievances by mutual negotiation, conciliation and voluntary arbitration; that neither party will have recourse to [a]coercion, [b] intimidation, [c] victimisation or [d] goslow; that they will avoid [a] litigation, [b] sit-down and stay-in strikes and [c] lockouts; that they will promote constructive co-operation between their representatives at all levels, and also between workers themselves, and abide by the spirit of agreements mutually entered into; that they will establish upon a mutually agreed basis, a grievance procedure, which will ensure a speedy and full investigation leading to settlement; that they will abide by various stages, in the grievance procedure and take no arbitrary action which would by-pass this procedure; and they will educate the management personnel and workers regarding their obligations to each other. 3. Management Agree: not to increase work-loads unless agreed upon or settled otherwise; not to support or encourage any unfair labour practice such as [a] interference with the right of employees to enrol or continue as union members, [b] discrimination, restraint or coercion against any employee because of recognised activity of trade unions and [c] victimisation of any employees and abuse of authority in any form; to take prompt action for [a] settlement of grievances and [b] implementation of settlements, awards, decisions and orders; to display in conspicuous places in the undertaking the provisions of this Code in local language[s] to distinguish between actions justifying immediate discharge, and those where discharge must be preceded by a warning, reprimand, suspension or some other form of disciplinary action, and to arrange that all such disciplinary action should be subject to an appeal through normal grievance procedure; to take appropriate disciplinary action against its officers and members, in cases, where enquiries reveal that they were responsible for precipitate action by workers leading to indiscipline; and to recognise the union, in accordance with the criteria [ANNEXURE-A which follows] evolved at the 16th session of the Indian Labour conference held in May,1958. Union [s] Agree: not to engage in any form of physical duress; not to permit demonstrations which are not peaceful and not to permit rowdyism in demonstration;

15

that their members will not engage or cause other employees to engage in any union activity during working hours, unless is provided for by law, agreement or practice. to discourage unfair labour practices such as [a] negligence of duty, [b] careless operation [c] damage to property [d] interference with or disturbance to normal work and [e] insubordination; to take prompt action to implement awards, agreements settlements and decisions to display in conspicuous places in the union offices, the provisions of this Code in the local language[s]; and to express disapproval to take appropriate action against office bearers and members for indulging in action against the spirit of this Code. ANNEXURE A Criteria for Recognition of Unions Where there is more than one union, a union claiming recognition should have been functioning for atleast one year after registration Where there is only one union, this condition would not apply. The membership of the union should cover at least 15% of the workers in the establishment concerned. Membership would be counted, only of those who had paid their subscriptions for atleast three months, during the period of six months immediately preceding the reckoning. A union may claim to be recognised as a representative union for industry in a local area, it has a membership of atleast 25% of the workers of that industry in that area. When a union has been recognised, there should be no change in its position for a period of two years. Where there are several unions in an industry or establishment, the one with the largest membership should be recognised. A representative union for an industry in an area, should have the right to represent the workers in all the establishments in the industry, but if a union of workers in a particular establishment has a membership of 50% or more of the workers of that establishment, it should have the right to deal with matters of purely local interest, such as, for instance, the handling of grievances pertaining to its own members. All other workers who are not members of that union, might either operate through the representative union for the industry or seek redress directly. In the case of trade union federations which are not affiliated to any of the four central organisations of labour, the question of recognition would have to be dealt with separately. Only unions which observed the Code of Discipline would be entitled to recognition. EXHIBIT IV Rights of Recognised Unions Under the Code of Discipline The question of rights of union recognised under the Code of Discipline vis--vis recognised unions, was discussed at the 20th session of the Indian Labour Conference [August,1962]. While a decision on the rights of unrecognised unions was deferred for future consideration, it was agreed that unions granted recognition under the Code of Discipline should enjoy the following rights :-

16

to raise issues and enter into collective agreements with employers conditions on general questions, concerning the terms of employment and conditions of service of workers in an establishment or, in the case of a Representative Union, in an industry in a local area; to collect membership fees/subscriptions payable by members to the union within the premises of the undertaking; to put or cause to put up a notice-board on the employed, and affix or cause to be affixed, thereon, notices relating to meetings, statements of accounts of its income and expenditure, and other announcements which are not abusive, indecent or inflammatory, or subversive of discipline or otherwise contrary to the Code; for the purpose of prevention or settlement of an industrial dispute: to hold discussions with the employees who are members of the union, at a suitable place or places, within the premises of office/factory/establishment, as mutually agreed upon; to meet discuss with the employer, or any person appointed by him for the purpose, the grievances of its members employed in the undertaking; to inspect, by prior arrangement, in an undertaking, any place where any member of the union is employed to nominate its representatives on the Grievance Committee constituted under the Grievance Procedure in an establishment. to nominate its representatives on Joint Management Councils; and to nominate its representatives on non-statutory bipartite committee, e.g. production committees, welfare committees, canteen committees, house allotment committees, etc. set up by managements. The rights referred to above would be without prejudice to the privileges being enjoyed by the recognised unions at present, either by agreement or by usage. EXHIBIT V Union Recognition It would be desirable to make recognition compulsory under a Central law in all undertakings employing 100 or more workers, or where the capital invested is above a stipulated size. A trade union seeking recognition as a bargaining agent from an individual employer, should have a membership of at least 30% of workers in the establishment. The minimum membership should be 25 percent, if recognition is sought for an industry in a local area. The proposed National/State Industrial Relations Commissions [Recommendations 175-177) will have the power to decide the representative character of a union, either by examination of membership records, or if it considers necessary, by holding an election by secret ballot open to all employees. The Commission will deal with various aspects of union recognition such as [i] determining the level of recognition-whether plant, industry, centre-cum-industry-to decide the majority union, [ii] certifying the majority union as a recognised union for collective bargaining and [iii] generally dealing with other related matters. The recognised union should be statutorily given certain exclusive rights and facilities, such as right of sole representation; entering into collective agreements on terms of employment and conditions of service, collection of membership subscription within the premises of the undertaking, the right of check-off, holding discussions with departmental representatives of its worker members within factory premises, inspecting by prior agreement, the place of work of any of its members, and nominating its representatives on works /grievance committees and other bipartite committees.

17

The minority unions should be allowed, only the right to represent cases of dismissal and discharge, of their members before the Labour Court.