ASTO Sovereignty and MoU_A Closer Look_11 Nov 2011

8/10/2019 ASTO Sovereignty and MoU_A Closer Look_11 Nov 2011

1/10

1

ASSOCIATION OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNICAL OFFICERS[Registration No.172 (1967-68) Registrar of Societies U.P. Lucknow]

[ASTO is a sovereign body under the Society Act for all executives of ONGC by the charter of its

formation and the adopted constitution and bye-laws]

KC Hari Kumar

Member(Ex-General Secretary)

Dear friends,

Just as the supreme authority in a democratic country is wrested upon the people, for ourAssociation, the supreme authority rests with the Members. Just as every citizen is committed touphold the constitution and the national sovereignty, every member of ASTO must be committedto protect its sovereignty provided by the Constitution of India. Freedom to form an Associationand to conduct its affairs in a way beneficial to the community, organization and the nation is oursolemn right. Today on 10 November when I am writing these lines, I am reminded of thesacrifices made by our great national leaders to bequeath to us the democracy we have today. Oneof the most essential conditions for the success of a democracy is good governance and at this

juncture the question arises:

What is good governance?

Governance rooted in sincerity of purpose, honesty and transparency, graceful co-existence andplease note the basic dictum:

Governance is about processes, not about ends. It is a clean process of exercising authority for a welfare state

or organization without explicitly running after the ends.

Today, we are facing a crisis because governance got derailed in the process of pursuing ends asmay be noted from the agreement and code of conduct to which the last body had to become

signatories under circumstances that smacks of poor governance. Page 1 of the agreement startswith some good ideas but then the drafting slips into hyperbole and reads:

2. Corporate Level Executives

ONGC officers of the level of General Manager (E-7) and above represent the Management. They canhowever be associate Members of a recognized officers association with right to cast their votes in anyrecognized Officers Association election. However, they shall not participate in any recognized OfficersAssociation activities, or abide by any recognized Officers Association decisions, nor will contest inelections of the recognized Officers Association

Clause makes up a conduct and disciplinary rule for officers General Manager (E-7) and above. IfManagement is serious, it can be added to the CDA rules and the problems if any end there. On

the other hand, can this clause be implemented by the ASTO leaders who are bound by theconstitution and byelaws under which they got elected?

Can the leaders be legitimate signatories to such a paragraph which runs against theconstitution, bye-laws and precedence of the 4 decades?

Can a PSU working under the Constitution of India and authorities holding their positions atthe pleasure of the President of the Democratic Union of India, restrict its General Managersand above from becoming members of a Society registered under the Society Act?


2/10

2

The genius who penned the above paragraph missed to see the breach of fundamental rightsimplied and due to lack of open deliberations by a CWC or CEC, document reached the table forsignatures.

Now see page 2 of the agreement

Paragraph 5 speaks of The Petitioner and Intervener represented by Shri Amit Kumar and ShriSanjay Goel...have jointly requested and authorized ONGC management to announce freshelections in terms of para 1 and 2 above, within 15 days of Honble Courts consent order and

conduct the same.

Who is the Intervener as per the Constitution of ASTO? Have any of us elected any intervenerat time who has the authority to put our fundamental rights on the bargaining table and tradethem at will or duress or whatever it may be?

What is the locus standee of an intervener to sign a MoU on behalf of the 20,000 officers? Justbecause someone had the resources to join the case happening at Delhi, will he become entitled tosign off our rights? Where is the CWC or CEC reflected in the agreement?

Is this fair governance and IR practice to exclude even the bare minimum one representative from

a major work centre (16as per the new notions in agreement) in the deliberations that led to thesigning of agreement?

Is it not the responsibility of the Management to take care that the MoU must look genuine,honest and transparent signed by a group that can claim integrity and express commitmenttowards the welfare of the ASTO members?

Transferring the Fundamental Rights of the Members of a Society

Can a petitioner and an intervener taking the name of the Association transfer the rights of themembers to the corporate employer?

Can the right to be a member and conduct the election process as per the collective will of theSociety be transferred to an external agency like corporate employer?

Can a Management act in a way irresponsible as the leaders and show disrespect for democraticprinciples?

Do we see the wisdom of a giant corporate entity like ONGC in the agreement? Did themanagement dignify itself by making such an agreement?

Para 6 speaks of existing CEC Members

Para 6 forbids the existing CEC Members from contesting. If the CEC members existed at thetime of MoU, where is the CEC resolution that gave accord to the MoU?

In 2003 when the MoU was signed between ASTO and Management, CMD, Mr. Subir Rahahimself paid a visit to the venue to meet all CEC Members. ONGC Management has a traditionof according such respect and recognition to CWC and CEC but the 16 Sep 2010 agreement

depicts a dismal picture.

Para 8 speaks of Undertaking on behalf of an Unborn Child

The incoming office bearers (the new borns) in the above said election process shall formally amend the

Constitution of ASTO in accordance with this agreement within three months of assuming office

Even the United powers who won the World War-I did not impose upon the Axis powers(Germany etc) conditions that are binding to the future generations in this manner. Can a


3/10

3

corporate employer demand a Society enjoying sovereignty under the Society Act to undertakesuch shameful business?

How a new CEC can be elected under a Constitution with the declared objective of meeting theunreasonable demands of a corporate employer to amend the constitution?

If such conditions are imposed on a CEC, what happens to the supreme authority wrested in theGBMs?

If a CEC can undertake such amendments where does the Society and its members stand?

Can the 4 signatories compromise the rights of the 20,000+ members of ASTO?

Why this penalty for ASTO?

Such events as above did not happen in any of the other 13 companies that went to strike? Whythen this penalty for ASTO?

All the leaders except one unfortunate guy have been exonerated and reinstated with honor andfive of them have been promoted as well.

Why only Hari Rao and ASTO under the guillotine?

True Story of the Strike

At this point of time, I shall remain tight lipped about this issue. All ASTO members may reflectover the knee-jerk reactions that ONGC witnessed and the panic that gripped certain people inpower. What was the cause of that panic?

They were not ASTO leaders who went into panic. Some of them were blue eyed boys of theregime that did charity for Cancer patients with the money extracted from contractors. No fairmanagement can put Hari Rao and ASTO alone under guillotine. Let any ASTO leader stand upand tell about a single organizational issue discussed and resolved for the betterment of ONGC...

it is the curse of ONGC that has befallen upon ASTO.

If this matter of elections moves to the Civil Court, then all the details may come out such as theleaders habituated to prying for carrots getting the stick on their backs as penalty for their

disservice to the community and the organization.

II

How the Meetings were conducted for the agreement?

CWCor CEC was not involved. Attached along with is the pdf doc Meetings that led to ASTOagreement. Dates of the meeting:

1. 15 September 2010, 16:00 hrs: S/Sri Amit Kumar, Rajan Pillai, SS Mayal, Sanjay Goel andGaurab Das only (5) were invited

2. 01 September 2010, 16:00 hrs: Same team as above

3. 29 June 2010, 10:00 hrs: Same team except Mr Mahipal Singh replaces Mr Gaurab Das

4. 7 April and 28thMay in the same fashion

Agreement was parented by simply 5 men of the 65 member CEC and the agreement knowinglyor unknowingly confiscates the fundamental rights of the Members... a blunder unheard of in thecorporate history of ER practices and Society Act.

Contents of the agreement are reproduced below and the details of the meetings attached asseparate pdf.


4/10


5/10


6/10


7/10


8/10


9/10


10/10

Documents

ASTO Sovereignty and MoU_A Closer Look_11 Nov 2011