2:51 PM
REDUNDANCY OF SR 4.32(1)
AILRSA has been
relentlessly waging struggles against the unfair practice of forcing the engine
crew to do coupling/uncoupling. It is more the intention of the railway
administration to marginalize the Loco Running Staff, reflected by the
inequitable and forceful implementation of the SR 4.32(1) beyond its rational
objective, than the existence of the rule or any safety thoughts that resulted
in enforcing the arbitrary practice.
Railway administration has always tried,
with the intention to embarrass the Loco Running Staff, to extent the scope of
the rule and make arbitrary corrections to the disadvantage of the staff,
impose extra burden on the engine crew by interpreting the rule based on policy
of expedience etc. AILRSA, bound by the interest of improving the condition of
the Loco Running Staff in harmony with the spirit of equity, the sense of
class-consciousness and fraternal preferences, has always responded effectively
against such outrageous actions on the part of the railway administration and
tried to expose the unfairness in the actions. On all such occasions, the
administration has followed an excessively offensive and harsh approach towards
the Loco Running Staff and has given unilateral punishments to silent our
protests with out showing any sense of inquiry or reform. Despite facing all
these offensive and oppressive approach AILRSA has never let the issue go in
oblivion and continued to pursue the issue with endurance.
The principled stand followed by AILRSA
all these time has been that, considering the job attributes and the
responsibilities imposed on the engine crew to run the trains punctually and
safely with zero tolerance to mistakes, we deserve a better working condition.
Forcing the engine crew to do the ancillary works like coupling/uncoupling etc
is not in the good interest of ensuring the condition. Moreover, the objective
of SR 4.32(1) is to ensure smooth functioning of train service during the time
of certain unforeseen or unusual situations and misusing the rule to make the
engine crew to do coupling/uncoupling on regular basis is against the intention
of GR 4.32. Hence, SR 4.32(1) need to be repealed duly taking into account its
contentious nature, negative contribution to industrial peace, unlimited scope
for misinterpretation, irrelevance as a safety rule, the general opinion formed
in this regard including the demand from the recognized union etc also.
AILRSA also maintained that until such time the rule is repealed the
provision of the third Para of SR 4.32(1) should be implemented in the right
perspective.
The role of SR
4.32(1) in aggravating the situation to the extent of causing disruption to the
train service at NCJ depot of TVC division once again proved the obstructive
nature of the rule. Even though Loco Running Staff was never a party to the
dispute that led to the incident, the deliberate attempt to drag them into the
issue as against their willingness succeeded only because of the existence of
the rule.
In the wake of this incident a delegation of AILRSA consisting of Com.M.M.Roly,
Com.R.Murali, Com.C.S.Kishore, met the General Manager and other Zonal
Authorities on 11.10.2013 and tried to convince them the facts. A memorandum
justifying the necessity to repeal SR 4.32(1) has also been submitted during
the meeting.
The text of the memorandum is
reproduced below:
To
The General Manager,
Sothern Railway,
Chennai.
Respected sir,
Sub: SR 4.32- impact on industrial peace - necessity to repeal it –reg.
In the wake of the
recent incident at NCJ of TVC division which caused to disrupt the train
service we would like to represent that the loco running staff was
unwarrantedly and involuntarily dragged into the issue as a part of the vested
interest and pre meditated plan of a section of employees under the auspice of
the SRMU. Even though the loco running staff was never a party to the
issue the people with the vested interest could achieve their unfair intention
because of the provision of SR 4.32.
SR 4.32 has remained
a contentious issue for long causing friction between the staff and giving
undue advantage to some who exploit it to advance their nefarious designs and
to disturb the industrial peace. In the past also there were many such
incidents which resulted in adversely affecting the normal functioning of the
railway. Since it was always the Loco running staff who had constantly
been harassed on account of this we suggest that the relevance of SR 4.32 need
to be reviewed objectively. In this regard we would like to present the
following points to establish the redundancy of the existence of SR 4.32.
1. The
provision of SR 4.32 was incorporated three decades before during the period of
steam traction to detach/attach the loco for loco purpose likewatering etc
only. For this purpose a group D staff was available in the locos
designated as third fireman to do the coupling and uncoupling of
steam loco to the formation and other related work and hence the provision of
SR 4.32. In the present context with diesel and AC traction, having only
LP and ALP (both belonging to class III) and with class IV employee separated
from the loco motive the continuance of the rule does not represent any
original intention.
2. There
are occasions where attaching / detaching of loco become necessary in the block
section between the stations like during sending relief engine, banking engine,
during engine failures, detaching of loco in emergency, during train parting
etc. When the rule was amended in 1992 we had represented and the
administration clarified that the intention of the amendment was only to ensure
coupling/uncoupling during the situations mentioned above where shunting staff
cannot be practically provided.
3. The
sub rule (b) of the GR 4.32 requires the engine crew to ensure that the
coupling between the engine and the train is properly secured. Forcing
the engine crew to physically do the coupling and uncoupling is never the
objective of GR 4.32. This can be rightly verified from the following GR
4.34 which requires the guard to ensure that the train is properly
coupled. It is a known fact that the guards are not made to physically
couple or uncouple the vehicle, and rightly so, whenever extra coaches are
attached to the train on the basis of this rule. If the same criterion is
applied here it is beyond doubt that SR 4.32 which is subservient to the GR
4.32 is unfair on the engine crew and caused to do injustice to the engine crew
in practice.
The reading of the
subsidiary rules of Central Railway, East Central Railway, North Western
Railway, South Central Railway, South Western Railway, Eastern Railway, North
Central Railway etc also establish that the subsidiary rule of Southern Railway
SR 4.32 has gone beyond the real objectives of GR 4.32. In all the
former cases the engine crew are not forced to physically do
coupling/uncoupling except for ensuring the coupling in the interest of safety
thereby giving due regard to the significance of the job attributes of the loco
running staff. Southern Railway is an exception to this general approach
due to the unfair influence from some quarters.
The SR 4.32 has been subjected to
correction many times in an arbitrary way, always to the disadvantage of the
loco running staff, on the basis of subjective evaluations. In the
process the rule has turned into a cause of frictions between staff and served
to create industrial unrest. The rule has also helped those with vested
interest and some person in the supervisory levels to use it as a means to
instigate the shunting/station staff, who otherwise have no objections in doing
coupling/uncoupling.
6. This
rule has also caused to create a wrong impression among the shunting /station
staff, mainly due to the instigation and also due to the unilateral punishments
given to the loco running staff by the railway administration at the behest of
operating authorities without considering the facts and circumstances whenever
an issue is emerged. Due to this they are made to believe that they have no responsibility
in the matter of coupling/uncoupling and hence are also refusing to render the
assistance, according to the last para of SR 4.32, rather than standing on the
platform and supervising.
When SR 4.32 was amended on 1992 the Railway administration had given
assurance that the loco running staff would not be required to physically do
coupling/uncoupling at places where shunting/station staff were provided
according to the spirit of the third para of SR 4.32 but put into actual
practice only at some places like Chennai central etc.
7.
Whenever there is any dispute regarding the distribution of duties it is
imperative on a fair administration to look into the various material factors,
the job attributes and the nature of work done by the disputed parties.
Detailing below are some of the points in this regard:
(a) ALPs are recruited
after a long and tough selection process through RRB with minimum ITI
qualification. In fact most of the ALPs who got recruited have higher
qualifications of Diploma or Degree in engineering and become capable to be
inducted as engine crew only after successfully passing various training
programmes whereas shunting / station staffs are not required to go through
these tough processes before selection and are having lesser qualifications
compared to ALP.
(b) Even in the case of
responsibilities connected to the duty the job of shunting /station staff
cannot be compared with the duty of an engine crew. Engine crew
shoulder higher responsibilities and do the significant duty of ensuring safety
without any margin for lapse.
(c) In the case of
nature of duty the engine crew is doing a strenuous job under the most adverse
conditions and is required to be consciously engaged in the job while on
duty. The shunting/ station staff on the other hand does less strenuous
job with less sever effect on safety. The workload on engine crew is also many
fold compared to that on the station/shunting staff.
(d) Shunting staff are
performing stationary duties and coupling/uncoupling is one of the main parts
of their duty. They are also provided with required protective apparels
like hand gloves, gum boots, helmets etc to perform this duty. On the
other hand the main duty of the engine crew is to run trains safely and punctually.
Moreover it is not possible to provide or to carry the safety apparels like
gloves, gum boots, helmets etc..
(e) Forcing engine crew to
do coupling/uncoupling by standing on the human faeces, by enduring the
spillage of urine from the train toilets, by standing on the dirty and
hazardous stagnant water on the track without the aid of protective apparels
like hand gloves, gumboot, helmets etc. is not only dangerous to their health
but also affects their sense of dignity as ensured by the High Power committee
to review the HOER, 2013. The relevant portion is enclosed here with and
marked as Annexure I. During rain things will get even worse.
Making the engine crew to work further in the dirty conditions caused by the
coupling and uncoupling is not in the interest of safety. Moreover the
running staff is forced to continue wearing the soiled and wet clothes during
their entire spell of duty as they normally reach their home station after two
or three days.
Owing to
the running nature of their duty they normally do not get adequate opportunity
to recover from this and the difficulties faced by the engine crew in
continuing with train working in this bad state of condition is a matter
of serious concern.
Conveniently ignoring
all these factors and forcing the engine crew to do coupling/uncoupling is
arbitrary and it has created a sense of injustice in the mind of the loco
running staff which needs to be addressed.
The SR
4.32 has no relevance as far as the safety is concerned and has only
contributed to cause friction between the staff and created many situations
adversely affecting the smooth functioning of the train service. The demand to
scrap the rule assumes greater significance as the recognized union SRMU is
also in favour of it. They have raised it in the 64th PNM of
TVC division and also staged hunger strike on the issue. They also raised the
demand to scrap SR 4.32 as a general issue during the special meeting held with
DRM/MAS on 17-04-2012 for which the railway administration replied that the
status quo would be continued. So in the objective sense repealing SR 4.32
should not be a problem for the administration.
The apprehension that the
repealing of SR 4.32 would result in additional man power is unfounded as a
shunting staff is presently available during coupling for conveying signals.
In the view of above facts this union
requests your good self to take necessary steps to find a perpetual solution to
the issue and to save the loco running staff from being constantly subjected to
harassments and embarrassment. Till such time the status quo should be
maintained to ensure industrial peace and smooth functioning of railway.
Thanking you yours faithfully
Chennai
( R Murali )
11.10.2013 General
Secretary, AILRSA South Zone
.jpg)
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment