On December 18, 2025, housekeeping and support staff at Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport in Kolkata staged a brief protest over the newly introduced biometric attendance tracking system, which logs both entry and exit times to prevent early departures. The protest began when one worker was reportedly denied entry for not having a “proper uniform,” although union leaders insist the underlying issue was the rigid biometric monitoring that reportedly penalises small timing variances as attendance breaches. Workers rallied outside the terminal for around 40 minutes, demanding not only fair uniforms and winterwear but also clearer working-hour accounting and holiday pay rules, amid fear that biometric data could be used punitively against them. Contractors supplying staff tried to calm the situation, agreeing to provide uniforms by end-December, but they rebuffed requests to alter compensation terms.
The Times of India
The emotional response among frontline workers was complex. Many expressed resentment and vulnerability, feeling that rigid biometric systems treat them as numbers rather than humans with legitimate needs for fairness and dignity. Some voiced worry that attendance flags on biometric logs — even when tied to uniform rules — could cascade into wage deductions or disciplinary flags. A few workers used the protest to surface deeper grievances about contractor management, lack of winter gear, and months of rigid oversight without adequate consultation. Behind the scenes, some supervisors acknowledged practical productivity gains from stricter attendance systems but admitted the rollout lacked adequate communication and sensitivity, leaving workers feeling alienated and unheard.
The Times of India
From a compliance perspective, biometric attendance systems intersect with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, which impose strict obligations on sensitive data processing, consent, purpose limitation, breach reporting, and retention policies. Employers must ensure the biometric system’s use, storage, and retention policies comply with DPDP Act standards, including clear notice to workers, documented consent, security safeguards, and periodic audits. Minimising punitive interpretations of incidental mismatches and aligning attendance data with statutory working-hour norms (under the Shops & Establishments Acts or applicable Codes) is essential. HR must address both ethical surveillance concerns and statutory data protection requirements, balancing operational efficiency with worker rights. Immediate steps include consent forms, grievance channels, data retention limits, and clear SOPs for exceptions.
Wikipedia
Should biometric attendance systems be used where workers lack decision-latitude over entry/exit times?
What safeguards should HR build so data privacy and fairness are equally protected?
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7The Times of India
The emotional response among frontline workers was complex. Many expressed resentment and vulnerability, feeling that rigid biometric systems treat them as numbers rather than humans with legitimate needs for fairness and dignity. Some voiced worry that attendance flags on biometric logs — even when tied to uniform rules — could cascade into wage deductions or disciplinary flags. A few workers used the protest to surface deeper grievances about contractor management, lack of winter gear, and months of rigid oversight without adequate consultation. Behind the scenes, some supervisors acknowledged practical productivity gains from stricter attendance systems but admitted the rollout lacked adequate communication and sensitivity, leaving workers feeling alienated and unheard.
The Times of India
From a compliance perspective, biometric attendance systems intersect with the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, which impose strict obligations on sensitive data processing, consent, purpose limitation, breach reporting, and retention policies. Employers must ensure the biometric system’s use, storage, and retention policies comply with DPDP Act standards, including clear notice to workers, documented consent, security safeguards, and periodic audits. Minimising punitive interpretations of incidental mismatches and aligning attendance data with statutory working-hour norms (under the Shops & Establishments Acts or applicable Codes) is essential. HR must address both ethical surveillance concerns and statutory data protection requirements, balancing operational efficiency with worker rights. Immediate steps include consent forms, grievance channels, data retention limits, and clear SOPs for exceptions.
Wikipedia
Should biometric attendance systems be used where workers lack decision-latitude over entry/exit times?
What safeguards should HR build so data privacy and fairness are equally protected?
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Data Storage.pdf
New MIS reports Master Data.xls
TEACHER PERFORMANCE APPRISAL SYSTEM.zip