191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 1 of 22

PARLIAMENT OF RAJYA SABHA DEPARTMENT-RELATED PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY FIRST REPORT ON DEMANDS FOR GRANTS (2006-2007), DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES, THE MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES (PRESENTED TO THE RAJYA SABHA ON 22ND MAY, 2006) (LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE ON 22ND MAY, 2006) RAJYA SABHA SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI MAY, 2006/VAISHAKHA, 1928 (SAKA) C O N T E N T S

(I) COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE (II) PREFACE (III) REPORT (IV) OBSERVATIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE– AT A GLANCE (V) MINUTES (VI) ANNEXURE PREFACE I, the Chairman of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry, having been authorised by the Committee, hereby present this One Hundred Ninety First Report on the Demand for Grants (2006-2007) pertaining to the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises. 2. The Committee heard the oral evidence of the Secretary and other representatives of the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, on the 12th April, 2006. 3. The Committee in its meeting held on 22nd May, 2006 considered and adopted the Report. New Delhi: SANTOSH BAGRODIA 22nd May, Chairman Department Related Parliamentary 2006; Standing Committee on Industry

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY (Date of constitution 5th August, 2005)

Shri Santosh Bagrodia — Chairman

RAJYA SABHA

2. Shri Surendra Lath 3. Shri Suresh Bhardwaj

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 2 of 22

4. Dr. K. Malaisamy 5. Shri Pyarimohan Mohapatra 6. Dr. Vijay Mallya 7. Shrimati Sumitra Mahajan 8. Shri O.T. Lepcha* 9. Vacant 10. Vacant

LOK SABHA 11. Shri Guharam Ajgalle 12. Shri Kailash Baitha 13. Shri Rajnarayan 14. Shri Swadesh Chakraborty 15. Shri Bapu Hari Chaure 16. Shri Subhash Sureshchandra Deshmukh 17. Shri Ram Singh Kaswan 18. Dr. Vallabhbhai Kathiria 19. Smt. 20. Shri Sunil Kumar Mahato 21. Shri Prakash Paranjpe 22. Shri Kishanbhai V. Patel 23. Shri Badiga Ramakrishna 24. Shri Gurjeet Singh Rana 25. Shri Sarvey Sathyanarayana 26. Smt. Rubab Sayeda 27. Kunwar Manvendra Singh 28. Shri Ganesh Singh 29. Shri Suraj Singh 30. Shri Girdhari Yadav 31. Shri Chandramani Tripathi

SECRETARIAT

Shri Sham Sher Singh, Joint Secretary Shri A.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Girija Shankar Prasad, Committee Officer

______*Nominated to the Committee w.e.f. 8.5.2006 Report

1. The Department of Public Enterprises plays the nodal role in coordinating the matters of general policy of non-financial nature affecting all the public sector industrial and commercial undertakings. The mandate also includes the matters relating to MoU mechanism to improve the performance of PSUs. The Department is also the mandated with the issues pertaining to the Councelling, Retraining and Redeployment of the rationalized employees of the CPSEs. The DPE is also the administrative Department for the Board for Reconstruction of

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 3 of 22

Public Sector Enterprises and the Bureau of Public Enterprises and looks after the issues relating to Permanent Machinery of Arbitration for PSUs.

Usage of Information Technology

2. The Committee has been consistant in its view that as the nodal agency for all the CPSEs, the DPE should use its IT facility to collect and maintain the updated data of all the CPSEs in respect of its Guidelines on non- financial issues.

3. The Committee was informed that Department of Public Enterprises made use of IT facilities for collection of data for preparation of Public Enterprises Survey through e-mail. A special e-mail address [email protected] has been developed and communicated to CPSEs for sending data in an input data sheet evolved for this purpose and made available on the DPE website dpe.nic.in. Similarly to collect half yearly performance data from CPSEs a format has been put on website and CPSEs have been requested to send the information through e-mail. During 2004-05, a number of CPSEs had responded through e-mail alongwith general mode of communication. Further, the Public Enterprises Survey and the guidelines issued by DPE have been put on website.

4. The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the DPE should use its IT resources to collect the updated information on its Guidelines, various programmes and policies that are applicable to all the CPSEs. The DPE should also provide linkages from its Website to the Websites of other CPSEs. DPE’s Website should be enriched with the linkages with relevant Websites, Executive Development Programmes, Research Studies and Media Reports on the CPSEs, Parliamentary Questions and the Acts that are relevant to the CPSEs. The Committee recommends if possibility should be explored to create an IT Network among CPSEs with DPE as its hub.

Demand No. 49

5. The DPE seeks an allocation of Rs. 35.32 crores for 2006-07. The Plan expenditure is Rs. 31.50 crores where as non-Plan expenditure is likely to be Rs.3.82 crores. The allocation for current year 2006-07 is higher by Rs. 1.58 crores as compared to RE 2005-06. The major Plan expenditure of Rs. 27.72 crores is on account of the CRR scheme for the VRS optees of the CPSEs. The Non-Plan expenditure for the Secretariat and Economic services is rs. 0.63 crores and the provision for projects/schemes for NE region and Sikkim is Rs. 3.15 crores which is 10% of the total plan outlay.

BRPSE 6. The Committee observes that the Non-Plan allocations towards Secretariat Economic Services have been enhanced from Rs.2.56 crores in BE 2005-06 to Rs.3.45 crores BE 2006-07. During the Financial Year 2005-06, the DPE had to seek Supplementary Demands twice to meet the Domestic Travel Expenses (DTE) of the members of BRPSE, MOU Task Force, etc. It is also clear that BRPSE only considers the revival package prepared by the respective Administrative Departments. The BRPSE since inception has submitted its recommendations in respect of 29 cases till February 2006. Its recommendations are only persuasive for the competent authority i.e. the Cabinet or its Committee. The BRPSE does not have any separate Budget nor can it seek independent technical/professional advice. The Committee wanted to know whether in the absence of a separate Budget, the autonomy of the BRPSE could be seriously handicapped.

7. The Committee was apprised by the DPE that the BRPSE was a part-time advisory body and secretarial assistance is provided by Department of Public Enterprises. The relevant resolution dated 6.12.2004 constituting BRPSE enables the Board to take the advice of experts, if considered necessary. The Committee was further informed that all the expenditure of the Board was met through the budget of DPE.

8. The Committee feels that the BRPSE was set up as a specialized body mandated to look into the possibilities and ways of the revival of the PSEs. It is irrelevant if it is a part time or full time body, till such time it is delivering on its mandate. Though it was empowered to seek independent advice, yet in practice the BRPSE is relying on the inputs given by the concerned administrative Department. The Committee would like to know about the cases where the BRPSE has consulted an independent expert. The Committee wonders that devoid of

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 4 of 22

independent advice, if BRPSE’s role is only to ratify the inputs given by concerned administrative Department.

9. The Committee took note of the DPE’s response on its query on the need for having a separate budget for BRPSE, that the matter was under examination and the views of the DPE would be furnished separately.

10. In view of Government’s emphasis on PSEs to generate internal resources to finance their revival, the Committee sought to know if the BRPSE formulated any Guideline on the unlocking of resources of the CPSEs by disposal of their surplus assets.

11. The Committee was informed that the DPE had advised the Administrative Ministries/Departments to submit the proposal in respect of the sick PSEs in the format prescribed by BRPSE. The format provided for furnishing details of the fund requirement and the means of financing including through sale of surplus assets, if any. BRPSE considers the proposals submitted by the Administrative Ministries/Departments including sale of surplus assets and utilisation of the proceeds for the revival of the PSE. The PSEs follow the transparent procedures for sale of assets and in the case of BIFR referred PSEs, the assets are sold as per the direction of BIFR.

12. The Committee has in a few cases observed that other stake holders like the State Governments, municipal authorities or ancillaries units too had claims on the surplus assets like land. In absence of a clearer policy, the process of negotiations among these stake holders could be protracted and prolonged, resulting in avoidable delay in disposal of surplus assets like land and its consequences for the concerned PSE. The Committee therefore impresses upon the DPE to take initiative to formulate a uniform policy on the issue and if required, consult the State Government and other stakeholders. NE Region

13. The Committee sought for the details of projects undertaken in NE from the allocated Rs. 3 Crores in 2005- 06. and also the reasons for the enhanced allocations this year. The Committee wondered if the CRR Scheme in the NE region were also funded out of the allocation for NE region.

14. The Committee was informed that as per the formulation of plan budget by the Planning Commission, 10% of the total plan fund had to be earmarked for the development of North Eastern Region (NER). As allocation of CRR fund has been enhanced to Rs. 31.50 Crores for 2006-07. Correspondingly, the share of North Eastern Region has also been enhanced to Rs. 3.15 crores as against Rs. 3 crores in 2005-06.

15. The Committee has not been informed of the number of beneficiaries of the CRR scheme in NE region and if the target set for the 2005-06 was met. The Committee would also like to be informed on the likely number of VRS optees from the NE region this year and the targeted coverage of the CRR scheme.

Executive Development Programmes

16. Rs. 36 lakhs have been allocated for the annual contribution towards ICPE. The Committee enquired the number of participants from respective CPSEs who attended the courses conducted by ICPE and the criteria for selection of participants. The Committee also enquired about the DPE’s assessment of the impact of such programmes on the performance of respective CPSE.

17. The Committee was informed that the International Centre for Promotionof Enterprises (ICPE) was an Inter- governmental Organisation and that India contributes to ICPE annually to the tune of Rs. 36 lakhs as membership fee. ICPE conducts short term training programme in different areas of management. It also conducts one year MBA programme for practising managers and policymakers of organizations from various countries.

18. The DPE informed that during 2004-05, 11 executives from the following CPSEs attended the short duration course conducted by ICPE:-

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 5 of 22

¾ Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals - 2 ¾ Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. - 2 ¾ Numaligarh Refinery - 2 ¾ Rural Electrification Corporation - 1 ¾ HUDCO - 1 ¾ Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - 1 ¾ Kuderamukh Iron Ore Company Ltd. - 1 ¾ Kochi Refinery - 1

19. During 2005-2006,12 executives of CPSEs attended short duration programmes conducted by ICPE.

20. The ICPE designs, develops and imparts the variety of tailor made and standardized programmes to meet the requirement of Managers of CPSEs. The courses conducted by ICPE are divided in two categories, one for long duration course like MBA and others for short duration courses viz. Total Quality Management, Public Policy & Management and Sustainable Development.

21. As regards illegibility criteria of the candidates, the Committee is informed that the ICPE has laid down that the executives to be nominated for these short duration programmes should be graduate with minimum 10 years experience of working in senior level in Public Enterprises. The participants should be middle/senior level executives with at least 15 years experience. For MBA Course, the candidate must possess a Bachelor’s Degree and proficiency in English. The nominations from CPSEs are being forwarded to ICPE after taking into account the qualification and experience prescribed for the programme and the final selection lies with ICPE. The charges for participation by CPSE executives are being met by the concerned CPSE. The executives of the CPSEs and Government officials trained under the programmes conducted by ICPE acquire knowledge and management skills.

22. The Committee feels it is essential that the country shares the experience of other countries in reconstructing their Public Sector. The DPE could be a repository of such studies on the revival of Public Sector in other countries. The Committee however desires that the DPE should make an assessment of the benefit of such short term programmes made. 23. The Committee wondered that given the wide spectrum of skills that are required in PSEs in different sectors of business, if the EDPs were comprehensive enough to cater to the specific professional requirements of different CPSEs.

24. The DPE informed that the Executive Development Programmes (EDPs) were organised in collaboration with reputed Management & Training Institutions in the country for the executives of CPSEs. EDPs covered some of the common issues which may be relevant to a number of CPSEs such as Corporate Finance, Management Audit, Cost Control and Cost Effectiveness, Stress Management etc. Many CPSEs have set up their own training/ research institutes to impart training to their executives and workers to meet their specific professional requirements.

25. In its 168th Report on the Demands for Grants for the year 2005-06, the Committee had sought to know if similar EDP programmes could be conducted in the country in partnership with premier professional institutes.

26. The DPE informed the Committee that the issue was considered by that Department and the matter was taken up with Department of Secondary and Higher Education for advising the Indian Institute of Management and Indian Institute of Technology to explore the possibilities for imparting training to the participants of ICPE Member countries in consultation or collaboration with ICPE. The matter was also taken up with Council for Scientific & Industrial Research to explore the possibilities for imparting training to the participants of ICPE member countries in consultation with ICPE. In addition to this, various professional institutions like Institute of Public Enterprise, Hyderabad, the Institute of Cost and Works Accounts of India, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkatta, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore are also imparting training to executives of CPSEs in collaboration with DPE.

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 6 of 22

27. The Committee takes note of the efforts made by the DPE and desires that it should be apprised of the response of the premier institutions of excellence on training the participants of ICPE member countries.

28. The Committee referred to its query in its 168th Report about the skill upgradation programme for the Floor-shop level supervisors and workmen. The Committee was then informed that such programmes were conducted by concerned CPSEs. That the DPE formulates guidelines for the PSEs in respect of non-financial issues including personnel management and training, the Committee sought to know if DPE considered the critical importance of regular skill upgradation of such functionaries, to enhance technological profile of the PSEs.

29. The Committee was informed that training and skill development of the CPSE employees was undertaken by the respective CPSEs. DPE supplements the efforts of the CPSEs in this direction by organizing EDPs in collaboration with reputed management institutions in the country. Considering the large manpower of CPSEs around 17 lakh, the skill upgradation for the floor level Supervisors and Workmen is undertaken by the CPSE concerned as the requirement vary from CPSE to CPSE. CPSEs are the best judge to identify and conduct programmes which would be helpful to meet their requirements. DPE has delegated powers to the Board of Navratna and Mini-ratna CPSEs with regard to issues relating to Personnel, Human Resource Management and Training. DPE has recently allowed the Board of Directors of these PSEs powers relating to Human Resource Management of below Board level executives to sub-committees of the Board or to executive of the PSE as may be decided by the Board of the PSE.

30. In the revival plans as approved by the Government for the PSEs, it has been observed by the Committee that the emphasis is more on the financial restructuring and not much stress is laid on aspects like technological upgradation, marketing and human resource development. Given the fact that Government has been making major investment is either settling the VRS dues or on CRR schemes, the Committee considers it only prudent to upgrade the skills of human resources with respective PSEs. Therefore human resource planning and development should have been an integral part of the revival strategy of the PSEs.

31. The Committee also takes note of the fact that Nav Ratna and Mini Ratna companies have been empowered on the issues relating to human resource development. The Committee may be apprised if the DPE, as the nodal department for all the CPSEs on non- financial matters, has issued any guideline for the regular skill upgradation and training of the supervisory and floor shop level functionaries.

MoU 32. Given that the DPE is also the nodal agency for the matter pertaining MoU between the PSEs and the administrative Ministries, the Committee notes that of some 200 CPSEs listed in A, B, C, D categories only 99 had signed MoU in 2004-05. The Committee accordingly sought to know the category-wise details in CPSEs that have signed MoU.

33. The Committee is informed of the catetory-wise details of the CPSEs who had signed the MOU for the year 2004-05:

Category No. of CPSEs Schedule-A 44 Schedule-B 32 Schedule-C 18 Schedule-D 02 Un-categorised 03 Total 99

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 7 of 22

that of 99 CPSEs, a number of them were the holding companies with subsidiaries and that the subsidiaries did not sign separate MOUs with the Ministries. The total number of CPSEs covered under MoU for the year 2004-05 alongwith their subsidiaries came to 144.

35. The Committee was also informed that normally, the PSEs which were referred to BIFR and in respect of which revival package was yet to be approved do not sign MOU. Some sick CPSEs which have not been referred to BIFR and their administrative Ministries have also sought exemption from signing of MOU.

36. The Committee observes that number of PSEs signing the MoU is highest 44 in Schedule A and the numbers gradually descend to 2 in Schedule D. The Committee would like to have the comment of DPE on this trend.

37. Further the Committee observes that of the 99 CPSEs which had signed MoU, 42 have been rated as Excellent, 33 as Very Good, 12 Good, 11 ‘Fair and 1 Poor. The Committee sought to know the category-wise break up of each of the rankings.

38. The Committee was apprised of the category-wise break up of MOU signing CPSEs and their provisional ratings for the year 2004-05 are as under:

Category Total No. of Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor CPSEs Schedule - A 44 25 13 02 03 01 Schedule - B 32 10 11 07 04 nil Schedule - C 18 05 08 02 03 nil Schedule - D 02 01 nil nil 01 nil Uncategorised 03 01 01 01 - - Total 99 42 33 12 11 01

39. The Committee was also informed that the MoU targets for a CPSE are fixed in terms of different parameters in the beginning of the financial year by the Task Force members in consultation with the Chief Executive of the concerned CPSE and the representatives of the administrative Ministry. On the completion of the financial year, the performance of the CPSE is evaluated and ratings are given on 5-points scale (excellent 1-1.50, very good 1.51-2.50, good 2.51-3.50, fair 3.51-4.50, poor 4.51-5.00) based on the composite score achieved by each CPSE.

40. The Committee observes that maximum Excellent and Very Good Ranking PSEs belonged to Schedule A and the numbers gradually come down in successive Schedules. The Committee would like to have the comment of DPE if the MoU performance of the PSE is directly linked with the factors like investment, capital base, net sales and profits etc. according to which the PSEs are categorized in Schedules by the DPE and if there was any system of relocating the Schedule of a PSE according to its MoU performance.

41. The Committee observed that in last five years ever since year 2000-01, the number of PSEs that signed the MoU, has remained almost stagnant between 96 to 105. The Committee sought to know from DPE the possible reason for such stagnation in numbers and if any steps were being taken to encourage PSEs to sign MoU.

42. The DPE informed the Committee the trend of CPSEs signing the MoU during the period 2000-01 to 2004-05 :

Particulars 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 No. of operating 234 231 226 230 227 CPSEs Profit making CPSE 123 120 119 139 143

Loss making CPSE 110 109 105 89 73

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 8 of 22

No. of MOU 105 104 100 96 99 signing CPSEs

43. The DPE informed the Committee that during financial year 2005-06, 102 CPSEs have signed the MoU. Out of 129 CPSEs short-listed for singing MOU for the financial year 2006-07, 105 CPSEs have signed MOU as on 31.03.2006 and 9 more CPSEs are likely to sign the MoU shortly and 15 have sought exemption.

44. The DPE further informed that the number of operating companies during the last five years has remained by and large the same. Normally, the PSEs which are referred to BIFR and in respect of which revival package is yet to be approved and the under constructions companies do not sign the MOU. Some of the sick CPSEs which have not been referred to BIFR have also sought exemption from signing of MOU.

45. The Committee has not been furnished the details about the process and criteria on the basis of which the PSEs are short listed for signing the MoU. The Committee may also be informed of the existence of BIFR once the BRPSE has been formed to look into the possibility and prospects of revival of the PSEs. The Committee would like to know the views of DPE on the possibility and desirability of transferring the cases of PSEs before the BIFR to the BRPSE.

46. The Committee sought to know the rationale behind signing annual MoU with CPSEs and if the conditions of MoU altered every year.

47. The Committee was informed that the rationale behind the signing of annual MOU with the CPSEs was to set before the companies certain objectives in the form of targets in various parameters for the coming year and to formalize the accountability so that the basic objectives/goals of setting up of such CPSEs can be realised.

48. MoU guidelines covering financial, dynamic, sector specific and enterprise specific parameters with specific weightage have been formulated based on the report of National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER). In order to address the specific nature of PSEs, special provisions have been made to incorporate/ make changes in the MoU parameters.

49. The Committee would like to know if the MoU scores at the end of the year form the basis for providing the Budgetary support to the Company in subsequent year. Without such incentives the system of annual MoU would only mean running the Company by commanding and imposing the objectives.

50. The Committee was further informed that the CPSEs are required to sign a fresh MoU with concerned administrative Ministry/Department once its revival as recommended by BRPSE was decided by the competent authority. The targets of turnover, profitability, etc. set out with the revival package as recommended by BRPSE and approved by the Government are included in the MOU of such CPSEs. Further, milestones for timely implementation of the revival scheme will also be incorporated in the MOU. Revival of PSEs

51. The Committee took note that the BRPSE had made recommendations in respect of 29PSUs. The Committee sought to know from DPE of the number of recommended cases that were recommended for revival, joint venture or closure. The Committee also observed that the revival packages largely entailed waiver or conversion into equity of the liabilities towards Government, Government Guarantee for fresh loans and fresh cash infusion for Capital expenditure. However, no provision was made for the technological up gradation or manpower training. The revival plans indicate the massive financial cost, which Government would have to bear. The Committee also sought to know the obligations on the part of PSEs and if measures are built into their revival plan to ensure the sustainability of the revival.

52. The Committee was informed that the revival proposal submitted to BRPSE contained the projection of profitability after implementation of scheme over next 5 years and the sustainability of the profits. BRPSE considers theproposalsand recommends revival package and makes the PSE accountable for achieving the projected performance assured before the Board.

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 9 of 22

53. The Committee was also informed of the 29 cases recommended by BRPSE till February 2006.

S. No. Category No. of cases of PSEs 1 Revival through revival package 21 2 Revival through Joint Venture with 7 PSEs/disinvestment 3 Closure 1 4 Total 29

54. BRPSE had recommended revival packages for the sick PSEs subject to those PSEs achieving the projected performance assured by them before the Board.

55. The Committee also takes note of the details of the performance targets assured by the PSEs for which BRPSE has recommended revival packages,

1) Hindustan Salts Ltd. (HSL)

56. With in one year of implementation of this scheme relating to Bromine plant expansion at a cost of Rs.5.60 crores, the promise made by the top management team of the company to the Board that HSL would earn a net profit of Rs.1.68 crores per year from the very first year of the project should be fulfilled.

2) BBJ Construction Co. Ltd. (BBJCL) (Rs./Crores) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Turn over 39.00 62.00 95.00 97.00 110.00 120.00 Profit before 1.59 5.14 13.37 13.11 15.35 17.76 tax

3) British India Corporation Ltd. (BIC) (Rs. in crores) 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Net Sales 26.50 98.00 98.00 98.00 98.00 98.00 Net Operating -34.38 6.17 12.23 10.69 9.03 7.25 Profit Net Profit 56.03 29.37 10.37 7.62 6.46 5.21 including Profit on Sale of Assets

4) Madras Fertilizers Ltd. (MFL)

57. MFL would achieve a turnover of at least Rs.2000 crores per annum from 2005-06 onwards with a net profit of Rs.50.00 crores per annum.

5) HMT Bearing Ltd. (HMTB)

58. The company will increase the turnover from Rs.26.70 crore in 2004-05 to Rs.50 crore in 2005-06, going up to Rs.67 crore, Rs.70 crore Rs.73 crore and Rs.77 crore during 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 with net profit of Rs.3 crore rising to Rs.6 crore during 2006-07 to 2009-10.

6) Praga Tools Ltd.(PTL)

59. The Company will increase its turnover/net profit from the level achieved in 2004-05 to Rs.23 crore/Rs.2

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 10 of 22

crore in 2005-06, Rs.28.30 crore/Rs.2.07 crore in 2006-07, Rs.29.56 crore/Rs.3.90 crore in 2007-08 and Rs.31 crore/Rs.4 crore in 2008-09 excluding the turnover/net profit arising out of sale of land.

7) Braithwaite & Company Ltd. (BCL)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total turnover (Rs. Crores) 82.32 84.52 106.72 109.37 112.02 Net profit (after depreciation, interest 4.15 4.51 13.24 13.85 14.53 and taxes) (Rs. Crores)

8) Bridge &Roof Co. (India) Ltd. (Rs./ Crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Sales 525.00 605.00 695.00 805.00 PBT 13.10 17.93 25.49 44.03

9) NEPA Ltd.

After implementation of the revival package Net Profit (Rs. in lakhs) 1st Year 1657 2nd Year 1429 3rd Year 918 4th Year 1045 5th Year 1173

10) Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. Ltd. (BWEL)

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Turnover 24.54 31.78 33.17 34.63 34.63 Profit Before Tax 4.19 5.06 5.62 6.26 6.07 Profit After Tax 3.84 4.64 5.15 5.73 5.56

11) Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. (TSPL) (Rs. in crores) 31.3.2006 31.3.2007 31.3.2008 31.3.2009 Sales 15.0 25.0 35.0 55.0 Net Profit/(loss) (4.65) 0.00 5.15 9.40

12) Bharat Pumps & Compressors Ltd. (BPCL) (Rs. in crores) 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Net Sales 81.06 96.05 109.68 123.56 137.75 PBT -2.83 2.35 11.87 12.35 21.02 PAT -2.83 2.35 11.07 11.40 19.40

13) Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. (HAL) (Rs. in crores)

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 11 of 22

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Net Turnover 143.07 151.09 155.96 155.97 155.97 Net Profit 3.76 4.41 5.59 3.88 4.51

14) Eastern Coalfields Ltd. (ECL)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total production (in million tonnes) 32.44 32.53 33.41 39.76 43.74 Net Profit/(loss) 81.48 -47.71 -16.19 542.56 871.50 (Rs. in crores)

15) Cement Corporation of India Ltd. (CCI)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Gross Sales (Rs. In crores) 188.06 193.52 223.57 312.01 351.92 Net Profit/(Loss) CCI as a whole -75.66 -20.28* 21.34* 60.77 70.70 (Rs. in crores) *Excludes profit on sale of units

16) HMT Machine Tools Ltd. (HMTMTL)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sales (Rs in lacs) 32287 37925 45375 47825 50175 Profit before interest & tax (PBIT) -2378 2177 3713 3473 2932 (Rs in lacs) Net Profit/(loss) after Deferred -4953* 577 1923 1828 1037 revenue Expenditure of VRS/Technology acquisition, etc. (Rs in lacs) * Includes provision for wage arrears – Rs.30 crores

17) Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. (HEC) (Rs. in crores) 01.01.06 to 01.01.07 to 01.4.08 to 01.04.09 to 31.12.06 31.3.08 31.3.09 31.3.10 Period 12 months 15 months 12 months 12 months Net Sales 300.00 410.00 365.00 400.00 Net Profit 6.07 12.25 17.98 30.23

18) Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL) (Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sales 553.48 572.69 699.79 719.08 719.08 Net Profit after tax (excluding interest 0.97 9.67 28.48 20.13 30.72 waiver and capital grant)

19) Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. (HIL)

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 12 of 22

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total Turnover 191.12 210.11 224.52 234.75 247.81 Net Profit/(Loss) 2.34 5.01 7.14 8.59 11.51

20) Tyre Corporation of India Ltd. (TCIL)

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Turnover (Rs. in crores) 52.00 80.00 85.00 Net Profit (Rs. in crores) 1.50 7.00 7.50

21) Mineral Exploration Corporation of India Ltd. (MECL)

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total Income 80.00 85.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 Profit before tax 15.64 5.11 10.64 18.82 22.51 Income tax @ 33.66% 5.26 1.72 3.58 6.33 7.58 Profit after tax 10.38 3.39 7.06 12.49 14.93

22) Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT)

60. Projected Financial Performance – Utilisation of Imported Ammonia instead of Captive Ammonia from 2005-06, Imported Furnace oil/Naphtha from 2005-06 onwards and LNG from 2009-10

(Rs. in Crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sales 1065.26 1224.82 1241.30 1241.30 1241.30 Subsidy 267.11 356.90 364.25 364.25 223.72 Profit Before Tax 1.58 37.81 50.72 50.36 183.29 Profit after tax 1.22 24.84 33.41 33.17 121.35

23) Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. (HSL)

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Turnover 250 529 504 518 545 Profit before Tax 2 19 29 47 55 Profit after Tax 2 18 26 43 50

24) Central Electronics Ltd. (CEL)

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Sales (net of Excise Duty) 93.50 142.50 192.75 218.13 232.88 Profit before tax 1.61 8.13 15.70 17.74 20.13

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 13 of 22

Profit after tax 1.05 5.28 10.20 11.53 13.08

25) National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. (NPCC)

(Rs. in crores) 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Total Turn over 540.00 702.00 912.60 1186.38 1542.29 Net profit/loss 1.87 12.60 31.87 53.11 85.83

61. The Committee observes that of the PSEs recommended for revival maximum 16 cases belonged to PSEs under administrative control of DHI, three PSEs under Department of Chemicals and Petro Chemicals, two PSEs each of Departments of Textiles and Fertilizer, and one PSE each from the Departments of Coal, Mines, Shipping, Scientific and Industrial Research and M/O Water Resources. The Committee hopes that the administrative Ministries/Departments of these PSEs will ensure that the revival packages are implemented in earnestly and comprehensively as approved by the Government and that the targets as promised are achieved. The Committee desires that as the administrative Ministry of BRPSE, the DPE should pursue and coordinate with the concerned administrative Ministries/Departments.

CRR Scheme

62. The Committee noted that Rs. 27.72 crores have been allocated for CRR scheme. It sought to know from the DPE of this year’s target under the CRR scheme. The Committee also sought the PSE-wise information of the beneficiaries under this scheme last year.

63. The Committee was informed that during 2006-07, allocation of fund under CRR is Rs. 31.50 Crores. However, after earmarking 2% and 10% of total fund for IT and North Eastern Region respectively, the remaining allocation for CRR comes to Rs. 27.72 Crores..

64. The Committee was further apprised that during 2005-06, 22000 VRS optees were given training till 31.12.2005. It is expected that the target set for 2005-06 was likely to be achieved keeping in view the trend of training held during 2005-06. The report for the last quarter and Annual Progress Report for 2005-06 were yet to be received from the nodal agencies.

65. For 2006-07, 29000 VRS optees have been targeted to be covered under CRR against the target of 28000 during 2005-06.

66. However the Committee that the PSE-wise details of VRS optees and those who took up the training under CRR scheme could have been provided for a better appraisal by the Committee. The Committee directs the DPE to furnish the updated details to the Committee.

67. The Committee was informed of the year-wise details of total VRS optees, annual target of trainees under CRR schemes, number of VRS optees actually trained, those of them actually rehabilitated.

Year No. of VR Optees Target assigned No. of trainees covered No. of trainees under CRR Scheme redeployed 2001-02 54,367 8000 8064 2660 2002-03 63,741 11900 12066 4705 2003-04 45,125 12000 12134 5732

For 2004-05, a target of 28000 VRS optees was set for re-training. Against this, 28003 have been covered under CRR and 9346 have been redeployed.

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 14 of 22

68. The Committee notes that the objective of the CRR scheme is to provide training to VRS optees so as to align them to the job market for a gainful employment. A comparison between number of VRS optees and those actually redeployed after the being trained under CRR, reveals that the scheme has not been effective in meeting this objective with only about 10% of the VRS optees actually getting redeployed. In such a scenario, manpower rationalization can only lead to wide-spread unemployment. Despite the fact that the Government is spending huge amount to settle the VRS and other statutory dues of the rationalized employees, the entire process of man power rationalization appears to be precipitating social insecurities and unemployment among a productive section of the society.

69. The Committee feels that the DPE must study the experiences of other countries those have gone through the similar process of reforms. The Committee also recommends that with present performance where only about 1/3 of the CRR beneficiaries actually get redeployment after training, there is a huge scope of improvement in the present status of CRR schemes.

70. The Committee sought to know the process of selection of the nodal agencies to train CRR beneficiaries and if there was any process of rating their performance.

71. The Committee was informed that the selection of Nodal agencies was done by a Committee headed by the Development Commissioner, SSI and represented by Ministry of Labour, Planning Commission, Ministry of Finance and Department of Public Enterprises. Nodal agencies are selected based on institutional background, profile and activities carried out under similar schemes/programmes, available facilities like faculties, infrastructure etc.

72. The performance of nodal agencies is determined based on progress reports, which includes figures on achievement against the assigned physical target and redeployment of trained VRS optees.

73. The Committee desires to know the ratings of the nodal agencies and the parameters of their performance. Further Committee observes that such training should be imparted in the vicinity of the existing parent company, so as to save the incidental costs that might prohibit the VRS optee to join the training. The Committee also observed that in several cases the location of such nodal agencies was not in the vicinity of the PSEs. Location of the nodal agency should facilitate the VRS optees to take advantage of this scheme. The Committee desires if the parent PSE could invite the nodal agencies to conduct courses to train their employees.

74. Furthermore, the Committee wants to know if the core competencies, skills and expertise of the personnel are considered before selecting the nodal agencies. Given the poor performance in redeploying the trainees, the Committee apprehends that these critical issues are perhaps not given due importance while selecting the nodal agencies. Bearing such possibilities into consideration the Committee has been impressing upon the DPE the need for some policy guidelines for regular skill upgradation and mid-career training for the supervisory staff and below. Such training will not only benefit the PSEs but shall also enhance the professional prospects of its employees in case of VRS. The Committee seeks DPE’s comments on these issues.

75. The Committee sought further information on its recommendation in its 168th Report asking the DPE to pursue with Planning Commission to include the family of the VRS optee in the coverage of CRR scheme. The Committee on previous occasions had also suggested if the CRR schemes could be aligned with the Government sponsored employment programmes or entrepreneur development schemes.

76. DPE once again had taken up the matter with Planning Commission but they have regretted to implement the provision of retraining of dependents of VRS optees. Planning Commission has viewed that with the proposed modification in scope, the CRR would be losing its focus on self-employment /redeployment of VR optees apart from associated difficulties in monitoring of the programme.

77. The Committee made that recommendation in view the abysmal performance in redeploying the CRR trainees. The Committee reiterates its recommendation and is not convinced with the nuances as explained by the

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 15 of 22

Planning Commission. The Committee notes that as the CRR scheme is being financed by the Planned allocation, as per the guidelines 30% of the allocation should be meant for women participants. Accordingly the Committee would like to know the participation of women in the CRR scheme. And if the spouse or female dependent of the VRS optee could be considered under such provision. The Committee asks the DPE to apprise the Planning Commission of the current performance of the CRR scheme regarding redeployment of trainees and also the views Committee seeking inclusion of dependents of the VRS optees into the CRR scheme. The Committee requires the DPE to obtain the opinion of the Planning Commission in view of the facts referred to above.

Need for Supplementery Demands

78. The Committee is informed of the Budget Estimates and Revised Estimates for 2005-06 and Budget Estimates for 2006-07 as given below :- (Rs. Crore) Plan Non-Plan

BE 2005-06 30 2.93

RE 2005-06 30 3.74

BE 2006-07 31.5 3.82

79. The DPE apprised the Committee that the Supplementary Grants were not sought under Plan expenditure during the financial year 2005-06. Under Non-Plan as against Budget Estimate of Rs.2.93 crore, the expenditure at the end of the financial year was higher due to enhanced expenditure under the Heads, “Professional and Special Services”, “Publications”, “Other Expenditure”, “Domestic Travel Expenses”. Against the revised estimates (based on supplementaries sought) of Rs.3.74 crores for 2005-06, budget for the current financial year 2006-07 has been sought for Rs.3.82 crore. Keeping in view the enhanced requirement the funds have been provided for in the budget estimates 2006-07. Hence it is expected that there will be no requirement of supplementary grants.

80. The Committee asks the DPE to respond to its observations, queries and recommendations. Annexure I STATE WISE LIST OF NODAL TRAINING AGENCIES

Sl. No. State / U.T. Name of Agency / (Location of Head Office) 1. Andhra Pradesh National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training (NISIET), Hyderabad Small Industries Service Institute, Vizag 2. Directorate General of Training & Redeployment 3. Indian Council of Small Industry, Kolkata 4. Assam Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Guwahati Indian Council of Small Industries, kolkata Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship, Guwahati National Productivity Council, New Delhi Small Industries Service Institute, Guwahati 5. Bihar Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Hajipur Institute of Entrepreneurship Development, Patna.

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 16 of 22

Small Industries Service Institute, Patna 6. Chandigarh Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, Mohali, (Chandigarh) 7. Chattisgarh Small Industry service Institute, Raipur 8. Delhi CMC Ltd., New Delhi Small Industries Service Institute, New Delhi 9. Goa MITCON, Pune 10. Gujarat Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation, Bhopal 11. Haryana Small Industries Service Institute, Karnal 12. Hyderabad Director General of Employment & Training, M/O Labour Indian Council of Small Industries, Kolkata 13. Jharkhand Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Bhubaneswar CMC Ltd., New Delhi Indian Council of Small Industries, Kolkata Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi Small Industries Service Institute, Ranchi 14. Karnataka Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Chennai Director General of Employment &Training, M/O Labour 1. National Productivity Council, New Delhi Small Industries Service Institute, Bangalore 15. Kerala Centre for Management Development, Trivendrum Small Industries Service Institute, Thrissur 16. Madhya Pradesh Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar Madhya Pradesh Consultancy Organisation, Bhopal Small Industries Service Institute, Indore 17. Maharashtra CMC Ltd., New Delhi MITCON, Pune Small Industries Service Institute, Mumbai 18. Orissa Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Bhubaneswar Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT), Bhubaneswar 19. Punjab Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Amritsar Institute of Labour Development, Jaipur NITRA, Ghaziabad 20. Rajasthan Institute of Labour Development, Jaipur 21. Tamil Nadu Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Chennai

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 17 of 22

Central Leather Research Institute, Chennai Small Industries Service Institute, Chennai Small Industries Service Institute, Coimbatore 22. Tripura Small Industries Service Institute, Agartala 23. Uttar Pradesh NIESBUD NOIDA Associated Chamber of Commerce & Industry of India (ASSOCHAM), New Delhi 24. Uttaranchal Electronics Service & Training Centre, Kaniya, Ramnagar U.P. Industrial Consultants Ltd. Kanpur 25. Central Institute of Plastic Engg. and Technology (CIPET) , Bhubaneswar Indian Council of Small Industries, Kolkata National School of Computer Education, Kolkata National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd., New Delhi Small Industries Service Institute, Kolkata

OBSERVATIONS/CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE AT A GLANCE

The Committee reiterates its recommendation that the DPE should use its IT resources to collect the updated information on its Guidelines, various programmes and policies that are applicable to all the CPSEs. The DPE should also provide linkages from its Website to the Websites of other CPSEs. DPE’s Website should be enriched with the linkages with relevant Websites, Executive Development Programmes, Research Studies and Media Reports on the CPSEs, Parliamentary Questions and the Acts that are relevant to the CPSEs. The Committee recommends if possibility should be explored to create an IT Network among CPSEs with DPE as its hub. (Para : 4) The Committee feels that the BRPSE was set up as a specialized body mandated to look into the possibilities and ways of the revival of the PSEs. It is irrelevant if it is a part time or full time body, till such time it is delivering on its mandate. Though it was empowered to seek independent advice, yet in practice the BRPSE is relying on the inputs given by the concerned administrative Department. The Committee would like to know about the cases where the BRPSE has consulted an independent expert. The Committee wonders that devoid of independent advice, if BRPSE’s role is only to ratify the inputs given by concerned administrative Department. (Para : 8) The Committee has in a few cases observed that other stake holders like the State Governments, municipal authorities or ancillaries units too had claims on the surplus assets like land. In absence of a clearer policy, the process of negotiations among these stake holders could be protracted and prolonged, resulting in avoidable delay in disposal of surplus assets like land and its consequences for the concerned PSE. The Committee therefore impresses upon the DPE to take initiative to formulate a uniform policy on the issue and if required, consult the State Government and other stakeholders. (Para : 12)

The Committee has not been informed of the number of beneficiaries of the CRR scheme in NE region and if the target set for the 2005-06 was met. The Committee would also like to be informed on the likely number of VRS optees from the NE region this year and the targeted coverage of the CRR scheme. (Para : 15)

The Committee feels it is essential that the country shares the experience of other countries in reconstructing their Public Sector. The DPE could be a repository of such studies on the revival of Public Sector in other countries. The Committee however desires that the DPE should make an assessment of the benefit of such short term programmes made.

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 18 of 22

(Para : 22) The Committee takes note of the efforts made by the DPE and desires that it should be apprised of the response of the premier institutions of excellence on training the participants of ICPE member countries. (Para : 27) In the revival plans as approved by the Government for the PSEs, it has been observed by the Committee that the emphasis is more on the financial restructuring and not much stress is laid on aspects like technological upgradation, marketing and human resource development. Given the fact that Government has been making major investment is either settling the VRS dues or on CRR schemes, the Committee considers it only prudent to upgrade the skills of human resources with respective PSEs. Therefore human resource planning and development should have been an integral part of the revival strategy of the PSEs. (Para : 30) The Committee also takes note of the fact that Nav Ratna and Mini Ratna companies have been empowered on the issues relating to human resource development. The Committee may be apprised if the DPE, as the nodal department for all the CPSEs on non- financial matters, has issued any guideline for the regular skill upgradation and training of the supervisory and floor shop level functionaries. (Para : 31) The Committee observes that number of PSEs signing the MoU is highest 44 in Schedule A and the numbers gradually descend to 2 in Schedule D. The Committee would like to have the comment of DPE on this trend. (Para : 36) The Committee observes that maximum Excellent and Very Good Ranking PSEs belonged to Schedule A and the numbers gradually come down in successive Schedules. The Committee would like to have the comment of DPE if the MoU performance of the PSE is directly linked with the factors like investment, capital base, net sales and profits etc. according to which the PSEs are categorized in Schedules by the DPE and if there was any system of relocating the Schedule of a PSE according to its MoU performance. (Para : 40) The Committee has not been furnished the details about the process and criteria on the basis of which the PSEs are short listed for signing the MoU. The Committee may also be informed of the existence of BIFR once the BRPSE has been formed to look into the possibility and prospects of revival of the PSEs. The Committee would like to know the views of DPE on the possibility and desirability of transferring the cases of PSEs before the BIFR to the BRPSE. (Para : 45) The Committee would like to know if the MoU scores at the end of the year form the basis for providing the Budgetary support to the Company in subsequent year. Without such incentives the system of annual MoU would only mean running the Company by commanding and imposing the objectives. (Para : 49) The Committee observes that of the PSEs recommended for revival maximum 16 cases belonged to PSEs under administrative control of DHI, three PSEs under Department of Chemicals and Petro Chemicals, two PSEs each of Departments of Textiles and Fertilizer, and one PSE each from the Departments of Coal, Mines, Shipping, Scientific and Industrial Research and M/O Water Resources. The Committee hopes that the administrative Ministries/Departments of these PSEs will ensure that the revival packages are implemented in earnestly and comprehensively as approved by the Government and that the targets as promised are achieved. The Committee desires that as the administrative Ministry of BRPSE, the DPE should pursue and coordinate with the concerned administrative Ministries/Departments. (Para : 61) The Committee notes that the objective of the CRR scheme is to provide training to VRS optees so as to align them to the job market for a gainful employment. A comparison between number of VRS optees and those actually redeployed after the being trained under CRR, reveals that the scheme has not been effective in meeting this objective with only about 10% of the VRS optees actually getting redeployed. In such a scenario, manpower rationalization can only lead to wide-spread unemployment. Despite the fact that the Government is spending huge amount to settle the VRS and other statutory dues of the rationalized employees, the entire process of man power rationalization appears to be precipitating social insecurities and unemployment among a productive section of the society. (Para : 68)

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 19 of 22

The Committee feels that the DPE must study the experiences of other countries those have gone through the similar process of reforms. The Committee also recommends that with present performance where only about 1/3 of the CRR beneficiaries actually get redeployment after training, there is a huge scope of improvement in the present status of CRR schemes. (Para : 69) The Committee desires to know the ratings of the nodal agencies and the parameters of their performance. Further Committee observes that such training should be imparted in the vicinity of the existing parent company, so as to save the incidental costs that might prohibit the VRS optee to join the training. The Committee also observed that in several cases the location of such nodal agencies was not in the vicinity of the PSEs. Location of the nodal agency should facilitate the VRS optees to take advantage of this scheme. The Committee desires if the parent PSE could invite the nodal agencies to conduct courses to train their employees. (Para : 73) Furthermore, the Committee wants to know if the core competencies, skills and expertise of the personnel are considered before selecting the nodal agencies. Given the poor performance in redeploying the trainees, the Committee apprehends that these critical issues are perhaps not given due importance while selecting the nodal agencies. Bearing such possibilities into consideration the Committee has been impressing upon the DPE the need for some policy guidelines for regular skill upgradation and mid-career training for the supervisory staff and below. Such training will not only benefit the PSEs but shall also enhance the professional prospects of its employees in case of VRS. The Committee seeks DPE’s comments on these issues. (Para : 74) The Committee made that recommendation in view the abysmal performance in redeploying the CRR trainees. The Committee reiterates its recommendation and is not convinced with the nuances as explained by the Planning Commission. The Committee notes that as the CRR scheme is being financed by the Planned allocation, as per the guidelines 30% of the allocation should be meant for women participants. Accordingly the Committee would like to know the participation of women in the CRR scheme. And if the spouse or female dependent of the VRS optee could be considered under such provision. The Committee asks the DPE to apprise the Planning Commission of the current performance of the CRR scheme regarding redeployment of trainees and also the views Committee seeking inclusion of dependents of the VRS optees into the CRR scheme. The Committee requires the DPE to obtain the opinion of the Planning Commission in view of the facts referred to above. (Para : 77)

Rajya Sabha Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Industry Minutes of the Meeting

The Committee met at 3.00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 16th May, 2006 in the Committee Room ‘A’ Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi.

Shri Santosh Bagrodia — Chairman

Rajya Sabha

Shri Surendra Lath Suresh Bhardaj Dr. K. Malaisamy Shri Pyarimohan Mohapatra

Lok Sabha

Shri Guharam Ajgalle Shri Rajnarayan Shri Bapu Hari Chaure

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 20 of 22

Shri Ram Singh Kaswan Smt. Susmita Bauri Shri Suraj Singh

SECRETARIAT

Shri Sham Sher Singh, Joint Secretary Shri A.K. Singh, Deputy Secretary Shri K.P. Singh, Under Secretary Shri Girija Shankar Prasad, Committee Officer

2. The Chairman of the Committee welcomed the Members of the Committee.

3. The Committee then took up the following reports for consideration and adoption:-

(i) One Hundred Seventy-ninth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in Committee's One Hundred Sixty-eighth Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06) of the Department of Public Enterprises (Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises); (ii) One Hundred Eightieth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in One Hundred Sixty-ninth Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06) of the Department of Heavy Industries (Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises); (iii) One Hundred Eighty- first Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in One Hundred Seventy-first Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06) of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries; (iv) One Hundred Eighty- second Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Sixtieth Report on the Tax Proposals affecting various segments of industries of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries; (v) One Hundred Eighty- third Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Seventieth Report on the Demands for Grants ( 2005-06) of the Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries; (vi) One Hundred Eighty- fourth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Seventy- second Report on Demands for Grants (2005-06) of the Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries ; (vii) One Hundred Eighty- fifth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Seventy-third Report on Inter-Sectoral Strategic Co-operation to Promote Small Scale Industries of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries; (viii) One Hundred Eighty- sixth Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Seventy-fourth Report on Operational Effectiveness of PMRY, REGP and KVI Schemes in Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Maharastra of the Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries ;

(ix) One Hundred Eighty-seventh Report on Action Taken by the Government on the recommendations contained in the One Hundred Seventy-fifth Report on Key concern areas of SSI in select states of the Ministry of Small Scale Industries; (x) One Hundred Eighty-eighth Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07) Ministry of Agro and Rural Industries; (xi) One Hundred Eighty-ninth Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07) Ministry of Small Scale Industries. (xii) One Hundred Ninetieth Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07) of Department of Heavy Industries ( Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises); and (xiii) One Hundred Ninety - first Report on Demands for Grants (2006-07) of Department of Public Enterprises (Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises).

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 21 of 22

4. The Committee, after a brief discussion, adopted all the above reports without any modification.

5. The Committee authorized Shri Surendra Lath and in his absence Dr. Malaisamy to present the Report in Rajya Sabha and Shri Ram Singh Kaswan and in his absence Shri Guharam Ajgalle to ley a copy of the Report in Lok Sabha.

6. The meeting was adjourned at 4.25 pm.

New Delhi K.P. Singh 16th May, 2006 Under Secretary

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008 191st Report of Committee on Industry Page 22 of 22

http://10.21.217.2/book2/reports/indus/191streport.htm 7/16/2008