The recent deadlock between employees of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), who struck work to protest the proposed corporatisation of its factories, and the Defence Ministry may have led to the unions calling off a month-long strike but fundamental issues about the functioning of the OFB remain. OFB employees have opposed the Centre’s proposal of converting ordnance factories into public sector entities in order to introduce greater professionalism in their management and increase the export potential of defence equipment. However, OFB employees have opposed the idea for various reasons.
The proposal for corporatisation is not new. The Modi government wanted it done in its first term but it was not until now–till Rajnath Singh took over as Defence Minister–that this process has gathered pace.
Why Restructuring
Before getting into the arguments on both sides, it is essential to take a look at the history of OFB and the way it has evolved. The Indian Ordnance Factories organisation – a family of 41 Ordnance Factories under the aegis of its corporate headquarters – Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata – is a mammoth industrial setup which functions under the Department of Defence Production of the Ministry of Defence. The OFB comprises the world’s largest defence equipment manufacturers, producing from troop uniforms, tents and boots to parachutes, ammunition, tanks, artillery guns and armoured vehicles for the armed forces.
The OFB traces its origins to the Gun and Shell factory set up by the East India Company in Cossipore, near Kolkata, in 1801. Since then it has made steady progress and forms an integrated base for indigenous production of defence hardware and equipment, with the primary objective of self-reliance in equipping the armed forces with state of the art battlefield equipment.
Ordnance Factories were set up as “captive centres” to serve the needs of the Armed forces, but have been facing performance issues for a long time. Concerns have been raised in various quarters over the last few decades, regarding the functioning of OFB which, according to its critics, lacks professional attitude as required from a manufacturing organization like OFB.
Today, the Board receives annual budgetary support of over Rs 2,000 crore, has over 80,000 employees and holds over 60,000 acres of land. More than 80 per cent of the OFB’s orders come from the army, though the cluster of 41 factories meets barely 50 per cent of the army’s requirements.
Once the so-called ‘force behind armed forces’ has lost its lustre because of the peculiar organisational structure.
The present set-up and methods of OFB are inconsistent with requirements of industry conglomerates that call for agility and flexibility at top managerial levels. Every decision relating to them from the modernisation of plants and machinery to entering into joint ventures with other companies are subject to government rules and regulations, which reduces the leverage and flexibility of a professionally run company.
Being an arm of the government, the OFB and its factories cannot retain profits and hence, do not have the incentive to make any. OFB in its present avatar of a departmental organisation may not be appropriate for carrying out production activities and competing with rivals in the sector who have all the managerial and technical flexibility.
According to the Defence Ministry, there are a few key issues concerning ordnance factories which impinge on performance:
Monopoly Supply: OFB has all along supplied products to Armed forces – the captive customer – on a nomination basis which has its inherent disadvantages. Because of monopoly, there is no incentive for OFB to improve its quality of products and implement a dynamic system of getting customer feedback on both quality and on-time delivery issues.
Quality issues: Poor quality of OFB products have been a consistent cause for concern. It’s an open secret that the armed forces routinely take up issues concerning the poor quality of ammunition manufactured by the ordnance factories, pointing out that it has led to several fatal incidents.
High Cost: The high cost of OFB products due to high overhead charges in OFB including high maintenance charges, high supervisory and indirect labour charges are major concerns. This also results in high overhead charges being loaded onto OFB products, with minimal innovation and technology development taking place.
According to the Additional Controller General of Defence Accounts Report of 2016, the OFB was overcharging the army several hundred crores in cases ranging from battle tanks to clothing to general stores. In the case of the T-90 tanks built under licence from Russia at the Heavy Vehicles Factory Avadi, the OFB was charging the army Rs 21 crore per tank, nearly 50 per cent more than what an import would cost.
Lack of innovation: There is minimal innovation and technology development in OFB.
Low productivity: Generally, there is low productivity of plant and machinery and manpower. Furthermore, working under the umbrella of Government procedures and being the sole service provider for Armed Forces, there is no penalty for delayed delivery to the customers.
How Corporatisation Plan Progressed
Over the past two decades, the subject of restructuring/corporatisation of OFB has been examined by various committees. The T.K.A. Nair Committee (formed in May 2000) suggested corporatisation – the conversion of the Ordnance Factory Board into the Ordnance Factory Corporation Limited. It was further observed that maintaining the status quo of Ordnance Factories as cost centres in a government department would prove expensive, financially and strategically.
With a strong Board consisting of senior officials from the Government, Army, research wings, public sector undertaking and from industry, the Corporation can start its long journey of relying on its strengths, revenues and surpluses, for growth. The proposed structure would also enable appropriate future changes in line with the dynamic fast-changing global environment related to the production of defence goods.
In 2004, the Vijay Kelkar Committee also recommended the same, suggesting that it be accorded the status of a Nav Ratna, along the lines of BSNL. Corporatisation does not necessarily mean privatisation. It was observed that the formation of a corporation alone would ensure that Ordnance Factories get the desired functional autonomy and make them accountable and responsible for their operations and performances.
Later, in April 2015, Vice Admiral Raman Puri Committee observed that it is essential to change the current functioning of OFB as an attached office of the Ministry and a budgeted entity as it is completely incompatible with the modern methods of production and quality control. It recommended corporatising the OFB and splitting it into three or four segments, with each one specialising in a distinct area like weapons, ammunition and combat vehicles.
The first moves to end the OFB monopoly came last year when the government notified 275 non-core items which the armed forces could buy from the open market. In the past, the services had to buy these items exclusively from the OFB.
Modi Govt. Initiative
The first moves to open up the OFB was started in September 2016 when it was assessed that OFB was not meeting the Army’s requirement. This led to the series of policy decisions that gradually come to the present stage; whittling away the OFB monopoly.
The corporatisation of ordnance factories was listed as one of the 167 “transformative ideas” to be implemented in the first 100 days of the Modi government’s second term. These ideas were proposed in early July based on the recommendations of the Sectoral Group of Secretaries in consultation with the relevant Groups of Ministers.
OFB’s top officials were called for a meeting with Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and Ministry officials on July 18, during which a decision to finalise the plan was taken. Officials say a Cabinet note to give effect to corporatisation had been prepared and circulated to stakeholder ministries for consultation.
According to the present dispensation, the vision of the proposal is to make OFB increase its turnover, export growth and self-reliance. Moreover, there is no proposal for privatisation.
In a statement, the Defence Ministry said: “Corporatisation of OFB will bring OFB at par with other defences Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) of the Ministry of Defence. This is in the interest of OFB as it will provide operational freedom and flexibility to the OFB which it presently lacks. Besides, the interests of the workers will be adequately safeguarded in any decision taken on the subject.”
The proposed transformation of OFB from a Government Department to a public sector corporate entity will have several advantages. These include:
– Improve flexibility and dynamism in decision making as a corporate entity.
– Improvement of the efficiency, move towards optimal costs
– Move away from cost-plus mechanism to competitive pricing so that armed forces could get cheaper products.
– Greater penetration in defence export market.
– Reduce import dependency for arms and ammunition.
– Greater flexibility in technology acquisition through overseas assets.
– Leapfrogging technology and innovation for self-reliance in defence.
– Currently, OFB is a production centre with a dependence on expensive foreign technology. A corporate entity will move from production-based to technology-based organization enhancing self-reliance.
– Corporatised Ordnance factories can form strategic alliances with Indian and overseas companies to develop new products and carve out a niche in the international armament industry.
– Corporatised Ordnance factories may not require finances from the Government to fund modernisation and R&D and can become a financially self-supporting organisation.
– Increased turnover/profitability will lead to enhanced employment and better service conditions.
– Under-utilised capacities in factories will be better utilised.
– Timely supply and quality of supplies by the factories will improve.
– Enhanced combat efficiency of the Armed Forces and ensuring customer satisfaction.
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, having studied the idea after taking over the MoD in May 2019, is determined to carry the plan through. Despite the employees threatening to go on a month-long strike in protest, Singh is reported to have given in-principle approval to start implementing the plan. Perhaps sensing his thought process, the OFB employees called off the strike and have agreed to discuss the issue.
Employees’ Unease
One of the fears of employees is that corporatisation is a step towards privatisation. They fear job losses. They also argue a corporate entity would not be able to survive the unique market environment of defence products.
“Converting the Ordnance Factories into a corporation is not commercially viable because of fluctuations in orders, long gaps between orders, uneconomical order quantity, and life cycle support required for 30-40 years after the introduction of equipment.
The experience of the past two decades is that corporatisation is a route to privatisation. Therefore, ordnance factories should continue as a departmental organisation,” says a letter sent to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh by the general secretaries of the three main employee federations that are leading the strike, affiliated respectively to the RSS, the CPM’s CITU, and the Congress party’s INTUC.
It remains to be seen if these arguments will cut any ice with the government-which, for the moment, appears determined to move ahead with corporatisation.
Nitin A. Gokhale
12 Comments
Jai
A copy paste study. Writer is definitely not aware of ground realities of defence production .
Private sector is being given licences for defence items for the last ten years or so. But nobody could come up. Probably they were relying on experts writer Mr Gokhale.
Sanjeev
Nitin ji , would wish you do some more research on the subject . Would invite you to detailed discussions as I have dealt this very closely to bring defence Production in India to a global player while persuing MPhil at NDC
अमोल
सर, तुम्ही या कर्मचाऱ्यांचा सुध्दा point of view लक्षात घ्यायला हवा, आता पर्यंत जे ख काम मिळाले आहे ते पूर्ण प्रामाणिक पणे त्यांनी केलेले आहे, त्यांच्या समस्या सुध्दा लक्षात घ्यायला हव्यात, तुम्ही गुणवत्तेबद्दल बोललात पण आधुनिकीकरण करणे हे कोणी करायला पाहिजे अधिकारी वर्गाने जर आधुनिकीकरण केले तसे काम कामगार कडे येईल तसे तो करेल जर आधुनिक आले तर आधुनिक ही, इतिहास जर पहिला तर ordnance factoryच्या कर्मचाऱ्यांनी तसे केलेले सुध्दा आहे.
OFB employee
Monopoly Supply:- Normal products available in market should not be compared to defence products. OFB is special establishment for exclusively manufacturing defence products. So, Monopoly word should never be used.
High cost:- There is one more establishment called CFA( finance and accounts division). If cost is more this establsiment should be closed first before Ordnance factories as they are not properly auditing and not implementing cost cutting measures.
Quality Issues: CQA is the establishment responsible for Quality. Make them responsible for low quality and close it first.
Lack of Innovation: what CVRDE and DRDO are doing? OFB is a manufacturing unit asper proved design and model. Whether OFB is responsible for Innovation? how? It is to be noted that scientists are not recruited in OFB.
Low productivity : Delay in placing of Indents on OFB by MoD. MoD should be blamed for this. With out production plan what one can do?
My suggestions:
1. For increase in productivity Indents for production should be placed by MOD in advance. Revision of all labour estimates with external agency is required so that machinery and manpower can be used to the optimum.
2. For high cost. If production increases cost on individual item reduces. Supervisory and managerial cadres should be pruned to the optimum. Indirect labour should be outsourced. Overtime to supervisors including MCM should be stopped.
3. For quality instead of procuring from cheap L1, some products like rubbers, gaskets, hoses should be procured from high quality source only. It should not be used after shelf-life. CQA should’ve very strict and should not give I note without complying to quality.
Rajendra Singh
Nitin Ji, you have covered the past, present & future of the eminent defense establishment called OFB.
In my view also, by this decision of corporate, Ordnance Factories will survive & prosper .
The fear of job security and loosing the tags of government servant is prevailing among employees. Kindly suggest, how to motivate the employees to accept this challenge.
Regards.
Rajendragudduji@gmail.
Rajendra Singh ,president
Vision Ordnance.
OFB employee
Monopoly Supply:- Normal products available in market should not be compared to defence products. OFB is special establishment for exclusively manufacturing defence products. So, Monopoly word should never be used.
High cost:- There is one more establishment called CFA( finance and accounts division). If cost is more this establsiment should be closed first before Ordnance factories as they are not properly auditing and not implementing cost cutting measures.
Quality Issues: CQA is the establishment responsible for Quality. Make them responsible for low quality and close it first.
Lack of Innovation: what CVRDE and DRDO are doing? OFB is a manufacturing unit asper proved design and model. Whether OFB is responsible for Innovation? how? It is to be noted that scientists are not recruited in OFB.
Low productivity : Delay in placing of Indents on OFB by MoD. MoD should be blamed for this. With out production plan what one can do?
My suggestions:
1. For increase in productivity Indents for production should be placed by MOD in advance. Revision of all labour estimates with external agency is required so that machinery and manpower can be used to the optimum.
2. For high cost. If production increases cost on individual item reduces. Supervisory and managerial cadres should be pruned to the optimum. Indirect labour should be outsourced. Overtime to supervisors including MCM should be stopped.
3. For quality instead of procuring from cheap L1, some products like rubbers, gaskets, hoses should be procured from high quality source only. It should not be used after shelf-life. CQA should’ve very strict and should not give I note without complying to quality.
ER Sheikh
Sir, please visit any Ord fy convenient to you. Some of final product factories are OF Medak, HVF Avadi, GCF Jabalpur, OF Amajhari, OF Khamaria, OF Varangaon,OF Bolangir. You will find the reassurance that OFs are quite capable to meet the present and future challenges. OF role in all wars India won, is unforgettable, yet occasionally some irresponsible criticism comes from some quarters, mainly due to lack of familiarisation and insufficient communication from OFB. OFB also serves as war reserve capacity. It is scaled to breakeven at minimum 15000 Crores per year. Any thing less, will have higher cost due to Operating below breakeven. Unlike auto sector OFB can not shake off manpower, since that is the strength of OFB. OFB has accepted DGQA as the User’s representative to prove and accept the final product. OF can offer under any third party inspection arrangement also. Recently OFB exported Gun barrel to largest Gun manufacturer for proof purpose, obviously as per European Specification. OFB produced the finest indigenous Artillery Gun Dhanush completely on its own, yet its Capability is doubted. Pevelence of frozen Specification is major hurdle to introduce advanced materials. There is room for any organisation to improve itself provided there is positive environment and protection against organized misinformation campaign. External committee, as they have no stake, so far could not correctly prescribe the right improvements needed. Solution will come from within. But there should be will to accept the suggestion and give a try. We cannot disown the OFB at any level. We should not throw baby along with bath water. Institutional knowledge and assets takes years to build. Recent Budgetary support was needed only when army procurement budget reduced drastically over last two years. In any case, OFB is a strategic institution, a home kitchen, a reserve in difficult time! You can’t always complain about higher cost of running on commercial basis. Yet OFB bagged some critical orders of Indian Army of new weapons against global competition. I wish the best to OFB in time to come.
Surya
If goverment of India wants to make any changes on ordnance factory why should not change in under goverment there is no need to change into corporation because in war time ofb is reserved force behind war support so don’t see loss or profit if goverment make it accountable or modernisation do it in under ofb recruit best engineers in factory bring new technology which make it better
J Mondal
Very appreciable writing . I am in this organisation. Plese keep writing on this subject so that young employee like me can get clear picture what is going to happen in future. Thank you.
Nitin's Father
unqualified people like this guy making claims senselessly
Vivek kumar
Ordnance ministry of defence h ye sahi hai isko private nhi krna chhaiye agar duniya mein sb kuch private hi Krna h to minister ko bhi private kro unki bhi ek sima banaye jay .
Isro ko bhi private kr dijiye drdo ko bhi aisa h to sirf ordnance ko q krna ye zrur kuch aur bt lagta h hame .Sarkar ko bhi private kr dijiye qki sarkar bhi koi kam time pr nhi krta h .Aisa agar hua to sbse phle sarkar ko private kro dekho himmAt h .Minister sb paise khane mein lge rhte h kuch minister hi kam krte h sb to. Aise hi faltu ke baithe h .
Vivek kumar
Minister ko bullet proof aur commando chahiye aur hamre desh ke jawan. Jaise army ,navy , airforce ke sabhi sainik ko bullet proof q nhi milta h iska jabab sarkar q nhi deti bs jo saheed hote unke arthi pr bhi nhi ye nikammi sarkar sirf hate krti h bari bari .
Government job dene chahiye ek students ko ye nhi ki sirf gov. Ko private krne mein time pass kre .
Naval dockyard se civilian technician kK vaccency hi nhi aati aUr bolte. H sarkar hm ye karenge wo krenge akhir krte q nhi h .Isliye phle sarkar ko sarkari se private kiya jay .