QUALITY OF WORK LIFE

CHAPTER 1

QUALITY OF WORK

INTRODUCTION

Working Life is a process of work organizations which enables its members at all
levels to
actively participate in shaping the organization environment, methods and outcome
s. Conceptual categories whichtogether make up the quality of working life are
adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy working conditions, immediate
opportunity to use and develop human capacities, opportunity for continued growth
and security, social integration in the work organization and the social relevance of
work life.

Quality of work life also refers to the favorableness or unfavorableness of a job

environment for people. It is a generic phase that covers per sons feelings about
every dimension of work including economic rewards and benefits, security,
working conditions, organization and interpersonal relationship and its intrinsic
meaning in a persons life.

The basic purpose of quality of work life is to develop work environment that are
excellent for people as well as for production. It aims at healthier, more satisfied
and more productive employees and more efficient, adaptive and profitable
organization.

Quality of work life is a subset of the quality of life which contains the relationship
between employees and their total working environment with human dimension.\

Quality of work life is the degree to which members of an organization are able to
satisfy their personal needs through their experience in the organization.
Its focus is on the problem of creating a human work environment where
employees work co-operatively and contributes to organizational objectives.

Quality of work life is important for job performance, job satisfaction, labor
turnover, labor management relations and such other factors which play an
important part in determining the overall well being of any industrial organization.

The quality of work life movement aims at integrating the socio-psychological

needs of employees. Several experiments indicate that the interest in improving the
QWL reflects societal changes.

The developments have an influence on the growth of the quality of work life
movement; ensure higher productivity and greater job satisfaction.

Factors affecting quality of work life:

Job satisfaction:

Job satisfaction is the favorable or unfavorable with which employees view

their work. As with motivation, it is affected by the environment. Job satisfaction is
impacted by job design. Jobs that are rich in positive behavioral elements such as
autonomy, variety, task identity, task significance and feedback contribute to
employees satisfaction. Likewise, orientation is important because the employees
acceptance by the work group contributes to satisfaction. Insert, each element of
the environmental system, can add to, or detract from, job satisfaction.

Pay:

Quality of work life is basically built around the concept of equitable pay. In this
days ahead, employees may want to participate in the profit of the organization.
People:

Almost everyone has to deal with three set of people in the work place. Those are
namely boss, co-workers in the same level and subordinates. Apart from this, some
professions need interaction with people like patients, media persons, public,
customers, thieves, robbers, physically disabled people, mentally challenged,
children, foreign delegates, gangsters, politicians, public figures and celebrities.
These situations demand high level of prudence, cool temper, tactfulness, humor,
kindness, diplomacy and sensitiveness.

Health conditions of employees:

Organization should realize that their true wealth lies in their employees and so
providing healthy environment for employees should be their primary objective.

Personal and career growth opportunities:

An organization should provide employees with opportunity for

personal/professional development and growth and to prepare them to accept the
responsibilities at higher level.

Participative management style and recognition:

Flat organization structure helps organization facilitate employee participation. A

Participative management style improves the quality of work life. Workers feel that
they have control over their work process and they also offer the innovative ideas
to improve them. Recognition also helps in motivating employees to perform
better. Recognition can be in form of rewarding employees for their best
performance.
Autonomous Work Teams:

An autonomous work team is one which can plan, regulate and control its
own work world. The management only specifies the goals that too in
collaboration with the team. The team organizes the contents and structure of its
job, evaluates its own performance, establishes its speed and chooses its production
method. It makes its own internal distribution of tasks and decides its own
membership. Autonomous team approach increases satisfaction and reduces
turnover and absenteeism.

Motivation:

Motivation is a complex subject. It involves the unique feelings, thoughts

and past experiences of each of us as we share a variety of relationships within and
outside organizations. To expect a single motivational approach work in every
situation is probably unrealistic. In fact, even theorists and researches take different
points of view about motivation. Nevertheless, motivation can be defined as a
persons drive to take an action because that person wants to do so. People act
because they feel that they have to. However, if they are motivated they make the
positive choice to act for a purpose because, for example, it may satisfy some of
their needs.

Work life balance:

Organization should provide the relaxation time for employees and offer tips
to balance their personal and professional lives. They should not strain employees
personal and social life by forcing on them by demanding working hours, overtime
work, business travel, untiming transfers. By the globalization the modern
employees are experiencing distress. To meet the challenges posed by present
standards, organizational must focus their attention in bringing a balance between
work life and personal life. The underlying assumption is that work life balance
will ultimately ensure Quality of work life. Today an employee desires work to be
more meaningful and challenging because quality is the acid test. A Quality of
work life gives an opportunity for deep sense of fulfillment. Employees seek a
supportive work environment that will enable them to balance work with personal
interests. Quality of work life provides a more humanized work environment. It
attempts to serve the higher order needs of workers as well as their basic needs.
Quality of Work Life indicates that the work should not have excessively negative
conditions. It should not put workers under undue stress. It should not damage or
degrade their humanness. It should not be threatening or unduly dangerous.
Employees in several companies that instituted Quality of work life experienced
better health and greater safety on the job. Other benefits included improved
employee satisfaction, morale, job interest, commitment and involvement;
increased opportunity for individual growth ; greater sense of ownership and
control of the work environment development of managerial ability for circle
leaders, improved communication in the organization and greater understanding
and respect between management and workers. The term Quality of work life has
been applied to a wide variety of organizational improvement efforts. The common
elements seem to be, has good man indicates, an attempt to restructure multiple
dimensions of the organizational and to institute a mechanism which introduces
and sustains changes overtime . Aspects of the change mechanism are usually an
increase in problem solving between the union and management Responsiveness to
employee concerns. In every organization, people and their behavior assumes vital
role in determining the performance and effectiveness. While many studies
concentrated on physical and financial performance of organization. Studies on
behavioral aspects seem to be inadequate. So, the attempts must to understand the
human side of the enterprise. The Quality of work life movement provides a value
frame work and a philosophy which has along term implication for the human
development and enrichment. It tries to balance both the work and family life.
Hence integrated approach with regard to Quality of work life is required for the
success of an individual and an organization. This underlines the necessity of
searching studies on the nature of human relations and the problems of human
relations and the problems of human behavior in the organization and suggests
measures to cope with the problems. Hence, an in depth on aspects like Quality of
work life can throw light on many non-identified aspects of human behavior which
may help in understanding the issues involved and improving the overall
performance of these organizations. There it is found that there is need to study in
greater detail about the topic
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

A study of quality of work life is a paramount importance, the nature being

different for each category of employees depending upon their needs. A good
quality of work life reduces absenteeism, accidents &attrition. Quality of work life
is useful to improve production, organizational effectiveness, morale of an
employees and economic development of the country. So an attempt has been
made to know about the employees satisfaction on QWL and its influence on
their working and social environment

SCOPE OF QUALITY OF WORK LIFE:

Work plays a central role in the life of the workers engaged in a productive
organization. It has an improvement impact on
1) Shaping his personality.
2) Determining his performance.
3) Commitment of follow employees.
4) Commitment to the organization and the society
NEED FOR THE STUDY

The most significant resources of an organization are human resources,

without it the organization cannot function. In fact, challenges, opportunity and
also the frustration of creating and managing organization very often originate
from the people relate problems that arise within them. People related problems
often steam from the mistaken belief that people are alike, that they may be treated
identically. There would be a lot of variability in psychological features, which
demand attention.

The present study on QUALITY OF WORK LIFE

OF EMPLOYEES WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE
MICRONICLABORATRY LIMITED, CHENNAI. Aims to know how for
the employees has a comfortable and enjoyable work life. There are so many
factors determining the quality of work life. The present day employees are much
concerned about wage, compensation, challenging job, job security, freedom and
autonomy participation in decision making, level of environment and commitment
to assess the Level of Quality of Work Life.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:

Walton (1973) has stated that the major conceptual areas have to be identified viz.,
adequate and fair compensation, safe and healthy working conditions, development
of human competencies, growth and security, social integration for understanding
quality of work life. Delamater and Walker (1974) have indicated that emphasis
have been made in the humanization of work which includes the need to protect
the worker from hazards to health and safety. Katz ell et. Al (1975) have observed
that an employee may enjoy a high quality of working life when he has positive
feelings towards his job and its future prospects, to stay on the job and performs
well. A report by QWL taskforce in George Manson University in Virginia, USA
assess the quality of their employees work lives and identified that the major
source of stress in work and the aspects of satisfaction /dissatisfaction of work
affected the QWL of their employees.

Glasier (1976) has revealed that quality of work life implies job security, good
working conditions, adequate and fair compensation and more even equal
employment opportunity all together.

Lawler (1978) has suggested that the plan based on participative culture inQWL
principles have been found to be more effective than traditionally managed plans.
Runcie (1980) has viewed that when an employee have positive perception of the
quality of work life in the company, he would further probably strive to further
improve the working conditions , increase production and can give
quality products.
Lawler & Ledford (1982), Buchanan and body (1982) leviathan and weenie (1984)
have demonstrated that the improvement in QWL has definite potential and scope
for improving productivity & overall organizational effectiveness. The degree of
goal and integration of individual is significantly influenced by the quality of
organization climate & work life was the observation made by berrett (1991) while
studying the individual goals & organization objectives.

Singh (1994) has observed that Indian managers on the meaning of work, the
managerial communist assigned higher preferences to psychological rewards
compared to monetary rewards. Both employer and employee better appreciate the
importance of the Quality of work life of an organization.

Quality of work life is a recent day topic of organizational psychology, some of the
elements that are relevant in defining an individuals quality of work life would
include the task, the physical work environment, social environment within the
organization, administrative system and relationship between life on and off the job
(Che Rose, Beh, Uli and Idris, 2006).

His study further concluded that the most important predictor of quality of work
life is organizational climate, followed by career achievement, career satisfaction
and career balance. A high quality of work life is essential for organizations to
continue, to attract and retain employees (Sand rick, 2003).In a Research report
(2010) it is stated that the quality of work life had an effect onemployeeslife
and working environment.

QWL provides for the balanced relationship among work, non- work and family
aspects of life. In a working paper (2011) it is given that Quality of working Life
enables members at all levels to actively participate in shaping the organization
environment, methods and outcomes.
 CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

To determine the factors influencing the quality of work life

To measure the level of satisfaction of employees towards quality of work
life.
To find out the way to improve quality of work life
To identify the attributes/factors influencing QWL in an organization
To analyze the level of satisfaction of the employees on QWL in
an organization.
To study the expectation of the employees to improve the QWL in their
work force.

To know the influence of QWL on employees performance

RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY

A Research is a careful investigation or inquiry; especially through search

for new facts in any branch of knowledge .It is a systemized effort to gain more
knowledge. Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research
problem. It may be understood as a science of studying how research is done
scientifically. It is necessary for the researcher to know not only the research
methods or technique but also the methodology. Researcher always needs to
understand the assumption underline various technique and they need to know the
criteria by which they can decide that certain technique and procedures will be
applicable to certain problems and other will not.

TYPE OF RESEARCH:

The method of conducting research deals with research design, data

collection method, sampling method. It explained about the nature of research
work to be done such as descriptive nature of research, which is used in this study.

DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH:
 The researcher has adopted descriptive research design for the purpose of
this survey. Descriptive studies are those studies which are concerned with
describing the characteristics of a particular individual, or of a group.

TYPES OF DATA
1) Primary data
2) Secondary data

PRIMARY DATA:
First time collected data are referred to as primary data. In this research the
primary data was collected by means of a Structured Questionnaire. The
questionnaire consists of number of questions in printed form. It has both open-end
closed end questions in it.

SECTION I PERSONAL DATA:

This section includes questions soliciting the respondents details such as
Age, Gender, Marital status, Education, Designation, section and Work experience.

SECTION II SCALE FOR MEASURING THE ISSUES:

It comprises of single open ended type and various close ended questions
which includes yes no type, scaling and other optional questions.
SECONDARY DATA:

Data which has already gone through the process of analysis or were used by
someone else earlier is referred to secondary data. This type of data was collected
from the books, journals, company records etc

SOURCE OF DATA:

The data has been collected from the employees OF

MICRONICLABORATRY LIMITED, CHENNAI.

SAMPLING UNIT:
Sampling unit refers to process of defining the target population that will be
sample. Hence for the present study, data was collected by means of questionnaire
from the employees.

SAMPLE SIZE:
Sample size plays a critical role, because the generalizability of the
conclusion depends on sample size. Sample size for the present study is 120.

SAMPLING METHOD:
 Sampling means the method of selecting a sample from a given universe
with a view to draw conclusions about the universe. Sample means representative
of universe selected for the study. Sampling is a process of units (e.g. People) from
a population of the interest Sampling method is divided into 2 types1) Probability
Method2) Non Probability Method The sampling method that was chosen is
entirely non probabilitistic in nature. In non probabilitistic method the researcher
has adopted convenience sampling method. In this method, the researcher select
the accessible population members from which to get information and the items
selected are easy to approach or easy to measure.

PERIOD OF STUDY:
The researcher done this study from MAY 21 2016 TO JULY 2 2016.
TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES:

In this research the tools such as Simple percentage analysis, chi square, and
correlation are used for data analysis.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The individual perspective appears to be different.
Some of the respondents are hesitated to tell the truth so that it may result in
wrong statistical data.
The department has allowed the researcher to collect the data from the
limited respondents only and limited departments only
The purpose from the sample not reveals the accurate facts.
Lack of respondents interest in answering the questions, and also might not
have revealed true information.
 Even though the researcher created a report respondent, some of them
doubted that the researcher has been send on behalf of the management and
so they were reluctant.
Unavailable of enough time.

INDUSTRY PROILE

INTRODUCTION TO THE ORGANIZATION

About As:

This has been a dream Entrepreneurial Venture to serve people. Living beings
survive on food. Its been people dream to retrieve virgin clean environment
ever since Industrial Revolution.

Clean Food, Safe Food, Quality Food, Nutritious Food, Clean Air, Clean Water,
Controlled Emission, Controlled Discharge, Safe Waste Disposal has been the
endeavor of all Regulatory & Government agencies at International & National
Level among other Public, Private Agencies, Organizations etc. This had gained
immense attention through the later decades of 20th Century, and has lost no
momentum in the 21st Century.

This dream entrepreneurial venture shall follow stringent National, International

Standards in BENCH MARKING TESTING SERVICES of Food, Food
Products, Agricultural Products & Environment, thereby, contribute in part
semblance towards achieving National, Global objective of Safe Quality Food
 & Environment through testing services such as soil and environmental testing
services, food products testing, agricultural products testing.

VISION:

Clean food and environment is the requirement of all the living beings and we
are working with a vision of providing this in accordance with all regulatory
measures.

Consumers well-being and health are at the core of our concerns. For this
reason, we strive to provide the best services to our clients to prevent health
hazards.
Because you care about consumers health

MISSION:

To contribute to global health and safety by providing our customers with

high quality laboratory and advisory services whilst creating opportunities
for our employees and generating sustainable shareholder value.

To be the World Leader in the Bioanalytical Testing Market.

 Providing safety and quality services and solutions for food, environment,
agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and consumer goods on a global
basis.

VALUE OF MACRONIC LABORATORY

Customer focus

Delivering customer satisfaction by listening to and exceeding customer

expectations

Adding value for our customers through our services

Seeking innovative solutions to help our customers achieve their goals.

Quality

Delivering quality in all our work; providing accurate results on time

Using the best appropriate technology and methods

Seeking to improve or change our processes for the better

Competence & Team Spirit

Employing a team of talented and competent staff

Investing in training and creating good career opportunities

Recognizing and encouraging outstanding performance

Integrity

Behaving ethically in all our business and financial activities

Demonstrating respect towards our customers and our staff

 Operating responsible environmental policies

SCIENTIFICALLY AND LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE DATA:

MACRONIC maintains strict adherence to our Quality Assurance/Quality

Control programs and regulatory requirements which comply with ISO 17025,
FDA, AOAC, GMP, ASTM, EU, AIHA and NVLAP guidelines and methods.

Financial Strength

At a time when many labs are consolidating, MACRONIC continues to grow.

Our goal is to grow both organically and through diversification. We do this by
bringing new tests on-line, developing patented procedures, improving quality
and efficiency on routine tests, and using our existing resources wisely. We
maintain exceptional insurance coverage.

Management Approach

MACRONIC is proud to be a family owned business with 2 generations of

family overseeing the operations. That same sense of family is extended to our
employees and clients alike. MACRONIC has an efficient management
structure which allows us to respond quickly to changes in the market and our
clients needs. We maintain a strategic focus on diversification and improving
our services rather than a short term focus on the bottom line.
Client Service

We strive to provide service based on your needs rather than our convenience.
Since our clients often need to respond beyond normal weekday working hours,
our labs have extended weekday, second shift and weekend hours. We have a
staff of Project Managers, Client Service Managers and dedicated point-of-
contact personnel to make your MACRONIC experience a great one. Our goal
is to provide you with seamless, friendly service each and every day.

Analytical Expertise

We employ only highly qualified and experienced chemists, microbiologists,

materials scientists, industrial hygienists, and technicians to offer you the best
in analytical services.

Technology

MACRONIC recognizes the importance of long term capital investment in

order to provide you with improved service. We offer web-site access to your
data, customized reports, an integrated Laboratory Information Management
 System (LIMS), and new instrumentation upgrades to allow us to expand our
scope of services and maintain our great customer support.

Full Service

MACRONIC can support all your Food, Consumer Products, Environmental,

Industrial Hygiene, Microbiology, Materials Testing, and Indoor Air Quality
needs. In addition to our routine analyses, we also perform special and research
projects.

PROCEDURE:

1. Separate the glove/sponge portion from the sponge Whirl-Pak at the

perforation

2. Tear off the clear, perforated strip at the top of the Whirl-Pak bag

3. Put on the sterile glove.

a. Remove the sterile glove from the pouch by the top edge without
contaminating (touching, breathing on, contacting etc.) the glove

b. Remove a glove by holding it from the wrist-side opening. Avoid any

contact with the outer surface of the glove. Insert clean hand into glove,
taking care not to puncture the glove.

c. Open the bag containing the sponge, wearing sterile gloves, being careful
not to touch sponge to anything but the gloved hand.

4. With gloved hand, remove sponge from the bag.

5. Using firm, even pressure move sponge slowly and thoroughly over sampling
area. First horizontally, then vertically.

6. Return sponge back to Whirl-Pak bag taking care not to contaminate the
sponge or the bag with the ungloved hand.

7. Close the bag by folding the top down three times and bending the wire ends
over onto the bag.

8. Label the sample using a permanent ink marker.

9. Keep sample at a refrigerated temperature (35-40F) until it is submitted to

the laboratory for analysis.

INTRODUCTION TO THE INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION:
 Background of the PFP Laboratory Task Group The Partnership for Food
Protection (PFP) is a group of dedicated officials from federal, state, local, and
tribal governments that have been brought together to build the foundation of an
integrated food/feed safety system in the United States. In August 2008, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hosted a national meeting, Gateway to
Food Protection, which reenergized efforts to work toward an integrated
approach to address the challenges of the growing global food supply.
Following this meeting, the PFP initiative was established to provide guidance
on implementing the necessary infrastructure and food safety strategies
essential to building an integrated food/feed safety system. The PFP is divided
into several focused workgroups charged with advancing federal, state, and
local partnerships in a coordinated and efficient manner. One of the workgroups
established to assist in accomplishing these goals was the Laboratory Task
Group (LTG).

The LTG is co-led by FDA and state partners and has been meeting via
teleconference since January 2011. The PFP LTG is comprised of seven
subcommittees: Accreditation, Regulatory Annex, Proficiency Testing,
Sampling, Methods, Analytical Worksheet Packages, and Reporting (See Figure
1). These subcommittees are led by FDA and state laboratory professionals and
are comprised of members from multiple federal, state and local agencies.
Supporting reference documentation identified by each subcommittee is
embedded within these draft best practices manual and consolidated in
Appendix 2. Purpose of the Food/Feed Testing Laboratories Best Practices
Manual (Draft) The PFP LTG was charged to document best practices and
procedures for food/feed laboratories to support confidence in the integrity and
 scientific validity of laboratory analytical data and facilitate the acceptance of
laboratory analytical data by regulatory agencies.

The Food/Feed Testing Laboratories Best Practices Manual (Draft) provides a

set of tools, definitions, and references that laboratories can use to improve their
operations. This draft best practices manual is a summary-level compilation of
the work of the LTG subcommittees. It primarily reflects the experiences and
perspectives of FDA and state and local food regulatory agencies who
participated in the PFP LTG. As such, state, local, and tribal regulatory
laboratories and FDA laboratories will be most able to directly apply the
manuals best practices to improve their operations. The manual may be
particularly useful for governmental laboratories that submit analytical data to
regulatory agencies in support of government food safety initiatives and routine
enforcement. Laboratories may be able to integrate these best practices into
relevant initiatives and frameworks (e.g., Manufactured Food Regulatory
Program Standards (MFRPS)). The manual does not implement the FDA Food
Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (Pub. L. 111-353) or other statutes, nor is it
a substitute for laboratory requirements that may be proposed as part of FSMA
rulemakings. The draft best practices manual generally may be useful to
laboratories working towards the goal of establishing a food or feed testing
program that may become a functional and productive part of a national
integrated food/feed safety system.

SCOPE:
 This document lays down the guidelines for general as well as the technical
criteria for recognition, terms and conditions of recognition, withdrawal
cancellation of recognition and financial aspects of the Laboratory
Recognition.

The recognition scheme is applicable to laboratories, which are functioning

independently irrespective of being an in-house laboratory or linked directly
or indirectly to any of the manufacturing / processing unit /organization/
Institution to the satisfaction of FSSAI provided the laboratory demonstrates
that there is no conflict of interest.

Recognition shall be accorded to a laboratory for single premises only where

actual testing is carried out. If the laboratory carries out testing activities in
more than one premise, separate recognition for each premise will have to be
obtained with a clear demarcation of scope of recognition. However, if the
laboratory establishes field satellite laboratories for preliminary screening
tests near at the place of the primary production of the food, the facilities can
be considered as part of the central main laboratory of the establishment, with
additional scope, where conformity tests can be carried out for the presence of
the particular substance provided such arrangements are addressed in the
Quality Manual of the Laboratory.

These criteria shall be applicable to Level 1- Food Laboratory, Level 2- Food

Laboratory and Referral Food Laboratory which are defined below:

Level 1 Laboratory:

The laboratory which is competent to carry out the complete analysis as per
The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food
Additives-Part-I & II) Regulations, 2011.
Level 2 Laboratory:

The laboratory which is competent to carry out the complete analysis as per
The Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food
Additives) Regulations, 2011 and Food Safety and Standards
(Contaminants, Toxins and Residues) Regulations, 2011.

Referral Food Laboratory:

The Laboratory having competence to carry out the analysis as per The Food
Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives)
Regulations, 2011 and Food Safety and Standards (Contaminants, Toxins
and Residues) Regulations,2011.

In addition the Referral laboratory must have the competence to meet the
following requirements:

1) R & D Capabilities:

For investigation for the purpose of fixation of standard of any article of

food and standardizing methods of analysis. The preference will be given
to the Laboratories having documentary evidence for carrying out R&D in
food sector.

2) Training Facilities:

The laboratory should have training center for Capacity building by way of
organizing professional training, workshops and seminars for the Food.
The preference will be given to the Laboratories having documentary
evidence for conducting trainings / workshops / seminars in food sector.

3) Other Facilities:
 The laboratory should have all the other required facilities for performing
the functions of Referral Food Laboratory as defined in the Act and
reproduced below:

Analysis of samples of food sent by any officer or authority authorized by

the Food Authority for the purpose and submission of the certificate of
analysis to the authorities concerned;

Investigation for the purpose of fixation of standard of any article of food;

Investigation in collaboration with the laboratories of Food analysts in the

various States and such other laboratories and institutions which the Food
Authority may approve on its behalf, for the purpose of standardizing
methods of analysis.

Ensuring that the laboratory follows the scientific protocols laid down for
handling/testing the articles of food.

Maintaining high standards of accuracy, reliability and credibility in the

operation of the laboratory and achieving and maintaining the required
levels of accreditation and reliability.

Laying down mechanism for ensuring that personnel of the laboratory

adhere to high professional standards and discipline.

Such other conditions, as the Authority may lay down for Referral
Laboratories.

ASSESSMENT:
 FSSAI shall process the application for on-site Assessment only after adjudging
the suitability of management system by adequacy audit. A team of assessors as
per scope applied by the laboratory shall be deputed by FSSAI to ascertain
compliance to the documented Quality Management System, equipment
facilities/ infrastructure and technical competence. The laboratory shall make
arrangements for travel and stay of the assessors and provide the facilities
required for on-site assessment as per the auditing principles.

The on-site assessment shall have the following steps:

Opening Meeting - This meeting will be conducted by the assessment team

leader (Lead Assessor) in which the Chief/Head of the laboratory, the Quality
Manager (QM) and the technical heads of all the divisions being audited are
expected to be present. During this meeting, the team leader will explain the
scope and extent of the assessment as well as the proposed plan for assessment.
The scope for recognition shall not be changed during the opening meeting.
Permission to take photocopy or photograph of documents relevant to
substantiate the audit findings shall be complied with by the laboratory. The
laboratory shall ensure that necessary infrastructure facilities and documentary
evidences are provided promptly to complete the assessment in scheduled time.
The laboratory shall primarily be responsible for completing the assessment in
scheduled time.

Conducting Assessment:

The assessment shall be conducted as per the assessment plan agreed to during
the opening meeting, and shall cover areas of the relevance to the scope of
recognition of the laboratory. Evaluation shall include verification of test
facilities, accommodation and environment, examination of documents and
 records, assessment of competence of laboratory personnel in conducting
laboratory analysis/ testing, performance in witness tests, documentary
evidence of participation in International Proficiency testing programs for
relevant analyses and matrices and compliance to its Annual Plan for
participation in such programs etc. A laboratory official, conversant with the
activities of the division(s) being audited, should accompany each assessor. The
non-conformances (NCs) identified by the assessment team shall be briefed and
submitted to the audited for necessary corrective action(s).

Closing meeting:

The assessment shall conclude with a closing meeting during which the
assessment team shall present its findings to the laboratory. All the members
present in the opening meeting should preferably be present in the closing
meeting. The non-conformance reports shall be acknowledged by QM or
authorized signatory, as a token of acceptance and time frame for the corrective
action(s) will be agreed to. No NC shall be closed either during the assessment
or at the time of closing meeting.

ASSESSMENT FEE:

The applicant laboratory shall bear assessment fee, as estimated by FSSAI,

for the number of assessors and man days deputed for assessment, based on
the scope applied for and arrangement for travel/stay.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF APPLICANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT

The laboratory is expected to provide the following assistance to the assessment

team during the visit:
 Arrangements for stay, local guidance, travel etc.

A representative of laboratory to accompany the team during the

assessment.

A suitable room where members of the team can meet and discuss during
the day and at the end of the day to exchange their notes and findings.

Secretarial and other office assistance like photocopying, etc.

Free accessibility to the records, test facilities as is deemed relevant by the

assessors

ON-SITE VERIFICATION ASSESSMENT:

The laboratory shall take necessary corrective actions within the stipulated time
period of not more than two months for the closure of the NCs, brought on
record by the assessment team, which will have to be verified by the
corresponding assessor before considering it for grant of recognition. On-site
verification assessment by the corresponding assessor may be required for
closure of major NCs. This follows up visit, for full or partial assessment, may
be carried out as above. The applicant Laboratory shall make all the
arrangements as per Clause and bear the assessment fee.

GRANT OF RECOGNITION:

Based on the recommendation of the assessment team, FSSAI shall consider for
grant of recognition to the laboratory. The laboratory will be issued a Certificate
of recognition annexed with the scope of recognition. The decision of the
FSSAI for granting the recognition or otherwise shall be final.
 The recognition granted shall be valid for a period of three years from the date
of Recognition. The renewal of recognition shall also be for three years at a
time. It shall be binding for the recognized laboratory to comply with the
directions/any modification in the scheme, issued by FSSAI from time to time.
The FSSAI recognized laboratory shall bound with the terms and conditions
given under Clause.

SURVEILLANCE

The recognized laboratory shall be subjected to surveillance audit at the end of

the 1st year of recognition to verify the continued compliance and maintenance
of competency and the implementation of quality system established by the
laboratory.

The laboratory shall be subjected to verification audit in case of any complaints

in sampling, testing and test reports or any other reasons.

During the validity of recognition, if the laboratory is found violating the terms
and conditions of recognition, its recognition is liable to be suspended and may
call for verification visits, for Which the laboratory is liable to pay visit charges.

SAMPLE RETENTION:

The laboratory shall keep the remnants of the sample after testing for a
minimum 19 period of one month except for perishable items, under stipulated
storage conditions as given in Test Request by the customer or as deemed fit by
the laboratory before they are disposed off or returned to the customer. The test
report shall be treated as strictly confidential between the testing laboratory and
FSSAI. No information regarding the sample or its results shall be divulged to
 any person including the FBO who may deliver the sample for testing on behalf
of FSSAI.

However, in case sample is submitted by the FBO/Consumer for testing within

the scope of recognition for the purpose of self monitoring or for monitoring /
certification by FSSAI, the details of testing shall be made available to FSSAI.
The FBO shall not be allowed to witness the test or to come in contact with the
testing personnel without prior recognition of FSSAI. Any assistance or
intervention required from the FBO for testing the sample shall be duly
indicated by FSSAI in the test request and shall be reported in the test report.

HISTORY OF THE INDUSTRY

Introduction:

Food sampling is a process used to check that a food is safe and that it does
not contain harmful contaminants, or that it contains only
permitted additives at acceptable levels, or that it contains the right levels of
key ingredients and its label declarations are correct, or to know the levels
of nutrients present. A food sample is carried out by subjecting the product to
physical analysis. Analysis may be undertaken by or on behalf of a
manufacturer regarding their own product, or for official food law enforcement
or control purposes, or for research or public information.

To undertake any analysis, unless the whole amount of food to be considered is

very small so that the food can be used for testing in its entirety, it is usually
necessary for a portion of it to be taken (e.g. a small quantity from a full
production batch, or a portion of what is on sale in a shop) this process is
 known as food sampling. In most cases with food to be analyzed there are two
levels of sampling the first being selection of a portion from the whole,
which is then submitted to a laboratory for testing, and the second being the
laboratorys taking of the individual amounts necessary for individual tests that
may be applied. It is the former that is food

Where it is intended that the results of any analysis to relate to the food as a
whole it is crucially important that the sample is representative of that whole
and the results of any analysis can only be meaningful if the sampling is
undertaken effectively. This is true whether the whole is a manufacturers
entire production batch, or where it is a single item but too large to all be used
for the test.

Factors relevant in considering the representativeness of a sample include the

homogeneity of the food, the relative sizes of the sample to be taken and the
whole, the potential degree of variation of the parameter(s) in question through
the whole, and the significance and intended use of the analytical result.

SAMPLING BY MANUFACTURERS

Food manufacturers and producers would need to satisfy themselves that any
sample taken for analysis is sufficiently representative of the food for the
analytical result to be meaningful. This is true whether the data are to be used as
the basis of labeling declarations, assurance of compliance with legislative or
other standards, monitoring of production as part of HACCP Hazard Analysis
and Critical Control Points, or for routine quality control.
 In the India although various guidance is available, either from manufacturers
associations or from sources of standards such as British Standards Institution
(such as British Standard BS6001), some of which may be relevant to certain
food types. It is largely down to manufacturers to make their own evaluations of
need and suitability. This must be translated into an assessment both of sample
portion size and number, and the frequency of taking samples.

Food law enforcement:

In the India, enforcement is under the Food Safety Act 1990. Food sampling is
undertaken primarily by local authorities and port health authorities for
submission to public analysts for analysis. Much of the legislation relates to
food as supplied to a consumer, meaning that every portion of a size of
perishable food and foods at risk as may be supplied to a consumer has to
comply, so that in such cases the sample submitted for analysis could simply be
an entire consumer-sized portion. There are exceptions, however, such as the
sampling of nut products for the presence of aflatoxins, which stipulate a
primary sample size related to the size of the consignment with associated
requirements for initial homogenization to produce a smaller sample to be sent
for analysis.

The Food Safety Act 1990 affords a right for defense analysis, and for referee
analysis in case of disputed analytical results, by stipulating that except where
to do so would prevent effective analysis the sample must be divided into three
parts. The INDIA Food Standards Agency provides supplementary guidance to
the enforcement authorities to assist with the sampling process and associated
decisions by sampling officers.
 There is no set frequency or rate for the sampling of food for law enforcement
in the INDIA. Between the 1930s and 1990s there had been a guideline
minimum rate for sampling for chemical analysis (not including samples for
microbiological examination) of 2.5 samples per annum per 1000 head of
population, however that was an arbitrary figure and more recent thinking
suggested that the selection of a frequency for sampling should be based on
risk. In this context risk includes all 'consumer protection' issues such as
pecuniary disadvantage from substandard or counterfeit products, as well as risk
to health. The Association of Public Analysts was commissioned by the Food
Standards Agency to look into this, culminating in a scheme for Risk Based
Sampling, though it has not yet been adopted by the enforcement authorities.

FOOD GRADING:

Involves the inspection, assessment and sorting of various foods regarding

quality, freshness, legal conformity and market value. Food grading often
occurs by hand, in which foods are assessed and sorted. Machinery is also used
to grade foods, and may involve sorting products by size, shape and quality. For
example, machinery can be used to remove spoiled food from fresh product.
 HISTORY OF FOOD TESTING:

In the early 13th century, the king of England proclaimed the first food
regulatory law, the Assize of Bread, which prohibited bakers from mixing
ground peas and beans into bread dough. Ever since, it has been a cat and
mouse game between the food industry and the public (fast forward to China
2008 cheap poisonous melamine in milk powder). In the US, food regulation
dates back to early colonial times. Here is a brief overview of the last 150 years
of government and industry food regulation.

1862 President Lincoln launches the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau
of Chemistry, the predecessor of the Food and Drug Administration.1906 The
original Food and Drugs Act is passed. It prohibits interstate commerce in miss-
branded and adulterated foods, drinks and drugs.1906 In the aftermath of The
Jungle by Upton Sinclair, which detailed the horrendous sanitary and working
conditions in the meatpacking industry, the Meat Inspection Act is passed.

1924 The Supreme Court rules that the Food and Drugs Act condemns every
statement, design, or device on a products label that may mislead or deceive,
even if technically true. 1938 A revised and expanded Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic (FDC) Act of 1938 is passed. Highlights include: safe tolerances to be
set for unavoidable poisonous substances, standards of identity, quality, and fill-
of-container to be set for foods, and authorization of factory inspections.

1939 First Food Standards issued (for canned tomatoes, tomato pure, and
tomato paste). 1949 FDA publishes guidance to industry for the first time,
 called Procedures for the Appraisal of the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food,
(aka the black book) 1950 Oleomargarine Act requires prominent labeling of
colored oleomargarine, to distinguish it from butter. (Yes, swindlers tried to sell
folks cheap margarine in the guise of butter.)

1958 Food Additives Amendment enacted, requiring manufacturers of new food

additives to establish safety. Going forward, manufacturers were required to
declare all additives in a product. 1958 FDA publishes the first list of food
substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). 1962 President Kennedy
proclaims the Consumer Bill of Rights. Included are the right to safety, the right
to be informed, the right to choose, and the right to be heard.

1965 Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires all consumer products in
interstate commerce to be honestly and informatively labeled, including food.
1971 Artificial sweetener saccharin, included in FDAs original GRAS
(generally recognized as safe) list, is removed from the list pending new
scientific study. 1973 California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) is formed.
Begins with 54 farmers mutually certifying each others adherence to its own
published, publicly available standards for defining organic produce.

1977 Bowing to industry pressure, the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act is
passed by Congress to stop the FDA from banning the chemical sweetener. The
act does require a label warning that saccharin has been found to cause cancer
in laboratory animals.1980 Infant Formula Act establishes special FDA controls
 to ensure necessary nutritional content and safety. 1980 The USDA Food and
Nutrition Information Center (FNIC) publishes the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. The guidelines are to be updated every 5 years. In 1980 there were
7 relatively simple guidelines. In the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
there were 41 recommendations in a 71 page booklet!!!

1982 FDA publishes first red book (successor to 1949 black book),
officially known as Toxicological Principles for the Safety Assessment of
Direct Food Additives and Color Additives Used in Food.1990 Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) is passed. It requires all packaged foods
to bear nutrition labeling and all health claims for foods to be consistent with
terms defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As a concession
to food manufacturers, the FDA authorizes some health claims for foods. The
food ingredient panel, serving sizes, and terms such as low fat and light are
standardized. This is pretty much the nutrition label as we know it today.

1991 Nutrition facts, basic per-serving nutritional information, are required on

foods under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Food labels are
to list the most important nutrients in an easy-to-follow format.1995 Saccharin
Notice Repeal Act repeals the saccharin notice requirements of 1977. People
can get their saccharin without having to read about its risks.

1995 American Heart Association initiates a food certification program

including AHAs Heart Check Symbol to appear on certain foods. Criteria are
 simple low in saturated fat and cholesterol for healthy people over age 2. Oh
and also, a certification payment to AHA by the food manufacturer. Now you
know why sugary cereal is Heart Checked.1998 Transfer, the US Fair Trade
organization is established, with a mission to build a more equitable and
sustainable model of international trade that benefits producers, consumers,
industry and the earth.

2002 The 2002 Farm Bill requires retailers provide country-of-origin (COOL)
labeling for fresh beef, pork, and lamb. After repeated debilitation and
stakeholder pressures, the law would finally go into effect only 6 years later, on
Oct 1, 2008, and even then with many loopholes.

USDA ORGANIC CERTIFICATE

2002 The National Organic Program (NOP), enacted. It restricts the use of the
term organic to certified organic producers. Certification is handled by state,
non-profit and private agencies that have been approved by the US Department
of Agriculture (USDA). 2003 Announcement made that FDA will require food
labels to include trans fat content. Labeling went into effect in 2006.

2003 The FDA announced plans to permit the manufacturers of food products
sold in the United States to make health claims on food labels which are
supported by less than conclusive evidence. From significant scientific
consensus before a claim can be made, industry can now rely on Some
scientific evidence or Very limited and preliminary scientific research to
 make a health claim. Opponents criticize it as opening the door to ill-founded
claims. Advocates believe it will make more information available to the public.

2004 Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act.
Requires labeling of any food that contains one or more of: peanuts, soybeans,
cows milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat. 2004 PepsiCo
launches Smart spot designating the more nutritious of its products with an
easy to spot symbol on the front of package. Baked Doritos in. Fried Doritos
out.

2005 Kraft launches Sensible Solutions, a similar initiative for its gamut of
products including sugar-free Jello, vitamin water, and Nabisco toasted
chips.2005 Presidents Choice launches Blue Menu to designate its healthier
products. 2006 Hannaford Brothers Supermarket Chain launches Guiding Stars
intended to help customers choose healthy foods. Foods are ranked 0 to 3 stars,
with three stars awarded to most nutritious foods. Only 20% of the supermarket
stocked items are starred, but sales of these items increase by several percentage
points.

Sept 2008 NuVal announced The nutritional value (NuVal) System scores
food on a scale of 1 to 100. The higher the NuVal Score, the higher the nutrition
of a food product. The score is based on a complex and *top secret* Overall
Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI) that takes into account 30 different nutrients
in food. [Update: read review]. Oct 2007 Kelloggs Launches Nutrition at a
 Glance based on the European Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) system. Front
of Package information includes daily percentage values for 6 nutrients:
calories, total fat, sodium, sugars, vitamin A, and vitamin C.

Oct 2008 Mars International launches GDA labeling of its foods and snacks in
the US. Oct 2008 Smart Choices launched a pan industry effort to promote a
standardized benchmark for front of package consumer information. Initial
supporters include General Mills, Con-Agra, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Unilever.
[update: read review]

January 2009 Healthy Ideas launched at Giant Foods and Stop & Shop
supermarkets. Around 10% of the items qualify for this benchmark, developed
by the grocers nutrition experts and based on FDA and USDA guidelines.
January 2009 Sara Lee introduces Nutritional Spotlight front of package labels
for bread, bun, and bagel products. This move is in contrast to an industry wide
attempt by manufacturers to create a unified Smart Choice label. This label is
similar to Mars and Kelloggs recent efforts.

Food testing strips:

Food testing strip are products that help determine whether or not food contains
bacteria that can cause food borne illness. These products can typically be used
on food, water, and hard surfaces, and are often designed for quick and easy
home and commercial use.

Categories of Food Strips:

 Currently, there are two categories of food testing strips on the market.

One type of food testing strip is an assay enzyme reactant test. This test requires
the food testing strip to be dipped into a blended mixture of food or test
samples, distilled water and a reagent. These strips are designed specifically to
detect those strains of E.coli and Salmonella that are harmful to humans.

A second type of food testing strip is a gram-negative swab, which is usually

administered directly to the food itself. Gram-negative swabs generally work
faster than enzyme reactant strips, but they differ in that the gram-negative
swabs are designed to detect a broad group of organisms, not just those that can
cause food borne illness in humans.

Usage of Food Strips:

The enzyme reactant test strips react when the buffer solution breaks the
bacterial wall. This breach releases enzymes, which react upon contact to the
enzyme test strips.

The gram-negative reactant activates when components of the gram-negative

cell wall or specific enzymes are present, causing the swab itself to change
color. This is not directly indicative of the presence or absence of human
pathogen in the test sample.

People are now working on new ways to enhance these pathogen strips with silk
pills and new nano-fiber technology
 ORGANIZATION CHART

CHAPTER-IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS

TABLE 4.1:
Age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid Below 20 27 22.3 22.5 22.5
 21-30 32 26.4 26.7 49.2
31-40 35 28.9 29.2 78.3
26 21.5 21.7 100.0
Above 40

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART
INTERPRETATION:

The above tables shows that he age of the employee are 22.3% of the
respondents are Below 20 years, 26.4% of the respondents are 21-30 years, 28.9%
of the respondents are 31-40 years, 21.5% of the respondents are Above 40 years.

TABLE 4. 2:
Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Male 60 49.6 50.0 50.0
60 49.6 50.0 100.0
Valid Female

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
 The above table can be interpreted that the Gender of the respondent are
49.6% of the respondent of male, 49.6% of the respondent of female.

TABLE 4.3

Marital Status
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Married 60 49.6 50.0 50.0
60 49.6 50.0 100.0
Valid Unmarried

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the marital status of the respondent are
49.6% of the respondent of married, 49.6% of the respondent of Unmarried.

TABLE 4.4:

Qualification
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
SSLC 15 12.4 12.5 12.5
HSC 18 14.9 15.0 27.5
30 24.8 25.0 52.5
Diploma/ITI
Valid
Degree 32 26.4 26.7 79.2
PG 25 20.7 20.8 100.0
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System
Total 121 100.0
CHART:

INTERPRETATION:

The above table can be interpreted that the Educational Qualification of the
respondent are 12.4% of the respondent of SSLC, 14.9% of the respondent of
HSC, 24.8% of the respondent of Diploma/ITI and 26.4% of the respondent of
Degree,20.7% of the respondent PG.

TABLE 4.5:
Salary
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
24 19.8 20.0 20.0
Below 10000

28 23.1 23.3 43.3

10001 to 20000

Valid 36 29.8 30.0 73.3

20001 to 30000

32 26.4 26.7 100.0

Above 30000

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Salary of the respondent are 19.8% of
the respondent of Below 10000, 23.1% of the respondent of 10001-20000, 29.8%
of the respondent of 20001-30000 and 26.4% of the respondent Above 30000.

TABLE 4.6

Experience
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
1 to 2 years 38 31.4 31.7 31.7
2 to 3 years 50 41.3 41.7 73.3

Valid 32 26.4 26.7 100.0

Above 3years

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Experience of the respondent are 28.1%
of the respondent of 1 to 2 years, 33.1% of the respondent of 2 to 3 years, 26.4%
of the respondent of Above 3 years.

TABLE 4.7

Job Profile
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 63 52.1 52.5 52.5
Valid No 57 47.1 47.5 100.0
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Job Profile of the respondent are 52.1%
of the respondent of Yes, 47.1% of the respondent of No.

TABLE 4.8

Find Every Work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Always 70 57.9 58.3 58.3

50 41.3 41.7 100.0
Valid Some times

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Find Every work of the respondent are
57.9% of the respondent of Always, 47.1% of the respondent of Some times.

TABLE 4.9

Require The Guidance

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Always 30 24.8 25.0 25.0
46 38.0 38.3 63.3
Some times
Valid
Never 44 36.4 36.7 100.0
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Require The Guidance of the
respondent are 24.8% of the respondent of Always, 38.0% of the respondent of
Some times,36.4% of the respondent of Never.

TABLE 4.10

Need Training to Perform

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 30 24.8 25.0 25.0
No 50 41.3 41.7 66.7

Valid 40 33.1 33.3 100.0

Cant say

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Need Training to perform of the
respondent are 24.8% of the respondent of Yes, 41.3% of the respondent of
No,33.1% of the respondent of Cant say.

TABLE 4.11

Type Of Work

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Yes 68 56.2 56.7 56.7

No 52 43.0 43.3 100.0

Valid

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Type of work the respondent are 56.2%
of the respondent of Yes, 43.0% of the respondent of No.

TABLE 4.12

Kind of Organization
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 31 25.6 25.8 25.8
no 47 38.8 39.2 65.0
Valid 42 34.7 35.0 100.0
Can`t say

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Kind of Organization of the respondent
are 25.6% of the respondent of Yes, 38.8% of the respondent of No, 34.7% of the
respondent of Cant say.

TABLE 4.13

Job Security
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
28 23.1 23.3 23.3
Strongly Agree

Agree 39 32.2 32.5 55.8

Valid Disagree 16 13.2 13.3 69.2

Strongly 37 30.6 30.8 100.0
Disagree
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Job security of the respondent are
23.1% of the respondent of Strongly Agree, 32.2% of the respondent of Agree,
13.2% of the respondent of Disagree,30.6% of the respondent Strongly Disagree.

TABLE 4.14
Find Work
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Always 17 14.0 14.2 14.2
Often 42 34.7 35.0 49.2
39 32.2 32.5 81.7
Valid Sometimes

Never 22 18.2 18.3 100.0

Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Find Work of the respondent are 14.0%
of the respondent of Always, 34.7% of the respondent of Often, 32.2% of the
respondent of Sometimes,18.2% of the respondent Never.

TABLE 4.15
Source Of Knowledge
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Report and journals 31 25.6 25.8 25.8
Meeting and group 38 31.4 31.7 57.5
discussion
Valid Experience of the 31 25.6 25.8 83.3
incidence sharing
Others 20 16.5 16.7 100.0

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Source of knowledge the respondent
are 25.6% of the respondent of Report and journals, 31.4% of the respondent of
Meeting and group discussion, 25.6% of the respondent of Experience of the
incidence sharing,16.5% of the respondent Others.

TABLE 4.16

Different departments
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Formal meeting 48 39.7 40.0 40.0

Informal meeting/ 72 59.5 60.0 100.0

Valid
chat
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Different Departments the respondent
are 39.7% of the respondent of Formal Meeting, 59.5% of the respondent of
Informal Meeting/Chat.

TABLE 4.17
Quality Of Work life
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
14 11.6 11.7 11.7
Not in existence at all

Nascent stage 34 28.1 28.3 40.0

Valid 41 33.9 34.2 74.2

Introduction stage

Growth stage 31 25.6 25.8 100.0

Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Quality of work life the respondent are
11.6% of the respondent of Not in existence at all, 28.1% of the respondent of
Naent stage, 33.9% of the respondent of Introduction stage, 25.6% of the
respondent of Growth stage.

TABLE 4.18

Food Testing
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 48 39.7 40.0 40.0
No 41 33.9 34.2 74.2
Valid 31 25.6 25.8 100.0
Can't say

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System
Total 121 100.0
CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Food Testing the respondent are 39.7%
of the respondent of Yes, 33.9% of the respondent of no, 25.6% of the respondent
of Cant say.

TABLE 4.19

Available Knowledge
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 35 28.9 29.2 29.2
No 60 49.6 50.0 79.2
Valid 25 20.7 20.8 100.0
Can't say

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
`Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Available Knowledge the respondent
are 28.9% of the respondent of Yes, 49.6% of the respondent of No, 20.7% of the
respondent of Cant say.

TABLE 4.20

Additional Personal Efforts

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
16 13.2 13.3 13.3
Invariably

36 29.8 30.0 43.3

Frequently
Valid
Rarely 29 24.0 24.2 67.5
Never 39 32.2 32.5 100.0
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Additional Personal Efforts the
respondent are 13.2% of the respondent of Invariably, 29.8% of the respondent of
Frequently, 24.0% of the respondent of Rarely, 32.2% of the respondent of Never.

TABLE 4.21

Knowledge Level
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
22 18.2 18.3 18.3
Further education and
training in my own time

Personal effort 30 24.8 25.0 43.3

Valid 32 26.4 26.7 70.0
Private research work

Magazines 36 29.8 30.0 100.0

Total 120 99.2 100.0

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Knowledge Level the respondent are
18.2% of the respondent of Further education and training in my own time, 24.8%
of the respondent of Personal Efforts, 26.4% of the respondent of Private research
work, 29.8% of the respondent of Magazines.

TABLE 4.22

Learning
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
32 26.4 26.7 26.7
Invariably

37 30.6 30.8 57.5

Frequently
Valid
Rarely 30 24.8 25.0 82.5
Never 21 17.4 17.5 100.0
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Learning the respondent are 26.4% of
the respondent of Invariably, 30.6% of the respondent of Frequently, 24.8% of the
respondent of Rarely, 17.4% of the respondent of Never.

TABLE 4.23
Biggest Cultural Barriers
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
14 11.6 11.7 11.7
I am in position attitude

33 27.3 27.5 39.2

In different of people
toward developmental
process
Valid
Lack of significant and 45 37.2 37.5 76.7
recognition to
knowledge sharing
Lack of open 28 23.1 23.3 100.0
mindedness
Total 120 99.2 100.0
1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Biggest cultural barriers the respondent
are 11.6% of the respondent of I am in position attitude, 27.3% of the respondent
of In different of people toward developmental process, 37.2% of the respondent of
Lack of significant and recognition to knowledge sharing, 23.1% of the respondent
of Lack of open mindedness.

TABLE 4.24

Effective implantation of QWL

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative
Percent
Valid 14 11.6 11.7 11.7
Changing peoples
behaviour from
knowledge hoarding to
knowledge sharing

18 14.9 15.0 26.7

Lack of understanding
of QWL and its benefits.

Determining what kind 19 15.7 15.8 42.5

of knowledge to be
managed & making it
available.
 Justifying the use of 20 16.5 16.7 59.2
scarce resources for
QWL
21 17.4 17.5 76.7
Lack of top
management
commitment to QWL

15 12.4 12.5 89.2

Overcoming
technological
limitations.

13 10.7 10.8 100.0

Attracting & retaining

talented people.

120 99.2 100.0

Total

1 .8
Missing System

Total 121 100.0

CHART

INTERPRETATION:
The above table can be interpreted that the Effective implementation of QWL the
respondent are 11.6% of the respondent of Changing peoples behaviour from
knowledge hoarding to knowledge sharing, 14.9% of the respondent of Lack of
understanding of QWL and its benefits, 15.7% of the respondent of Determining
what kind of knowledge to be managed & making it available, 16.5% of the
respondent of Justifying the use of scarce resources for QWL,17.4% of the
respondent of Lack of top management commitment to QWL, 12.4% of the
respondent Overcoming technological limitations, 10.7% of the respondent of
Attracting & retaining talented people.
 TEST

T-TEST

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
Mean
Age 120 2.5000 1.06904 .09759
Find Every 120 1.4167 .49507 .04519
Work

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0
t df Sig. (2- Mean 95% Confidence Interval of
tailed) Difference the Difference
Lower Upper
Age 25.617 119 .000 2.50000 2.3068 2.6932
Find Every 31.346 119 .000 1.41667 1.3272 1.5062
Work
ANOVA:

Gender
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Between .075 1 .075 .296 .587
Groups
Within 29.925 118 .254
Groups
Total 30.000 119

CORRELATION:

Correlations
Marital Status Find Work

1 .123
Pearson Correlation
Marital Status
Sig. (2-tailed) .180
N 120 120
 .123 1
Pearson Correlation
Find Work
Sig. (2-tailed) .180
N 120 120

CHI-SQUARE:

Qualification
Observed N Expected N Residual

SSLC 15 24.0 -9.0

HSC 18 24.0 -6.0
30 24.0 6.0
Diploma/ITI

Degree 32 24.0 8.0

PG 25 24.0 1.0
Total 120

Experience
Observed N Expected N Residual

34 30.0 4.0
1 to 2 years

40 30.0 10.0
2 to 3 years
 32 30.0 2.0
Above 3years

4.00 14 30.0 -16.0

Total 120

Test Statistics
Qualification Experience

9.083a 12.533b
Chi-Square

Df 4 3
.059 .006
Asymp. Sig.

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected
cell frequency is 24.0.

b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected
cell frequency is 30.0.
 CHAPTER-V

FINDINGS,SUGGESTION,CONCLUSION

FINDINGS

The employee are 22.3% of the respondents are Below 20 years, 26.4% of the
respondents are 21-30 years, 28.9% of the respondents are 31-40 years, 21.5% of
the respondents are Above 40 years.

It can be interpreted that the Gender of the respondent are 49.6% of the respondent
of male, 49.6% of the respondent of female.

It can be interpreted that the marital status of the respondent are 49.6% of the
respondent of married, 49.6% of the respondent of Unmarried.

It can be interpreted that the Educational Qualification of the respondent are 12.4%
of the respondent of SSLC, 14.9% of the respondent of HSC, 24.8% of the
respondent of Diploma/ITI and 26.4% of the respondent of Degree,20.7% of the
respondent PG.

It can be interpreted that the Salary of the respondent are 19.8% of the respondent
of Below 10000, 23.1% of the respondent of 10001-20000, 29.8% of the
respondent of 20001-30000 and 26.4% of the respondent Above 30000.
It can be interpreted that the Experience of the respondent are 28.1% of the
respondent of 1 to 2 years, 33.1% of the respondent of 2 to 3 years, 26.4% of the
respondent of Above 3 years.
It can be interpreted that the Job Profile of the respondent are 52.1% of the
respondent of Yes, 47.1% of the respondent of No.
It can be interpreted that the Find Every work of the respondent are 57.9% of the
respondent of Always, 47.1% of the respondent of Some times.

It can be interpreted that the Require The Guidance of the respondent are 24.8% of
the respondent of Always, 38.0% of the respondent of Some times,36.4% of the
respondent of Never.

It can be interpreted that the Need Training to perform of the respondent are 24.8%
of the respondent of Yes, 41.3% of the respondent of No,33.1% of the respondent
of Cant say.
It can be interpreted that the Type of work the respondent are 56.2% of the
respondent of Yes, 43.0% of the respondent of No.
It can be interpreted that the Kind of Organization of the respondent are 25.6% of
the respondent of Yes, 38.8% of the respondent of No, 34.7% of the respondent of
Cant say.
It can be interpreted that the Job security of the respondent are 23.1% of the
respondent of Strongly Agree, 32.2% of the respondent of Agree, 13.2% of the
respondent of Disagree,30.6% of the respondent Strongly Disagree.

It can be interpreted that the Find Work of the respondent are 14.0% of the
respondent of Always, 34.7% of the respondent of Often, 32.2% of the respondent
of Sometimes,18.2% of the respondent Never.
It can be interpreted that the Source of knowledge the respondent are 25.6% of the
respondent of Report and journals, 31.4% of the respondent of Meeting and group
discussion, 25.6% of the respondent of Experience of the incidence sharing,16.5%
of the respondent Others.
It can be interpreted that the Different Departments the respondent are 39.7% of
the respondent of Formal Meeting, 59.5% of the respondent of Informal
Meeting/Chat.

It can be interpreted that the Quality of work life the respondent are 11.6% of the
respondent of Not in existence at all, 28.1% of the respondent of Naent stage,
33.9% of the respondent of Introduction stage, 25.6% of the respondent of Growth
stage.

It can be interpreted that the Food Testing the respondent are 39.7% of the
respondent of Yes, 33.9% of the respondent of no, 25.6% of the respondent of
Cant say.

It can be interpreted that the Available Knowledge the respondent are 28.9% of the
respondent of Yes, 49.6% of the respondent of No, 20.7% of the respondent of
Cant say.

It can be interpreted that the Additional Personal Efforts the respondent are 13.2%
of the respondent of Invariably, 29.8% of the respondent of Frequently, 24.0% of
the respondent of Rarely, 32.2% of the respondent of Never.

It can be interpreted that the Knowledge Level the respondent are 18.2% of the
respondent of Further education and training in my own time, 24.8% of the
respondent of Personal Efforts, 26.4% of the respondent of Private research work,
29.8% of the respondent of Magazines.
It can be interpreted that the Learning the respondent are 26.4% of the respondent
of Invariably, 30.6% of the respondent of Frequently, 24.8% of the respondent of
Rarely, 17.4% of the respondent of Never.

It can be interpreted that the Biggest cultural barriers the respondent are 11.6% of
the respondent of I am in position attitude, 27.3% of the respondent of In
different of people toward developmental process, 37.2% of the respondent of
Lack of significant and recognition to knowledge sharing, 23.1% of the respondent
of Lack of open mindedness.

It can be interpreted that the Effective implementation of QWL the respondent are
11.6% of the respondent of Changing peoples behaviour from knowledge
hoarding to knowledge sharing, 14.9% of the respondent of Lack of understanding
of QWL and its benefits, 15.7% of the respondent of Determining what kind of
knowledge to be managed & making it available, 16.5% of the respondent of
Justifying the use of scarce resources for QWL,17.4% of the respondent of Lack
of top management commitment to QWL, 12.4% of the respondent Overcoming
technological limitations, 10.7% of the respondent of Attracting & retaining
talented people.
 SUGGESTION

Job satisfactions are found to be good and it can improve by providing the
satisfactory seating arrangement.
The organization can provide separate computers on each table so that they
can reduce paper works and increase speed and accuracy in maintenance and
retrieval of records
The organization can provide regular medical checkup for improving the
medical facilities.
The organization can provide bus/cab facilities from quarters to office.
The organization can provide effective training for efficient performance of
employees.
The Organization can appoint special computer trainee to meet out the
present computerization of the department.
Separate vigilance checks can be there to ensure punctuality of all
employees.
The Organization can improve the infrastructure for efficient working of
individuals
The Organization can review the promotion policies
 The Organization can concentrate on transfer policies especially for North
Indian employees.

CONCLUSION

Every organization has to satisfy some of the basic needs and demands of its
employees because the satisfied and motivated employees are the source of
achieving the organizational goals and objectives. In order to use the maximum
potential of the human resource, the organization has to provide them with the best
quality of their working life. Therefore every organization needs to update and
improve the quality of work life of the employees. From the study it is clear that
the overall quality of work life of employees is good in the office of commissioner
of central excise and service tax department of Chennai. This research highlights
some of the small gaps in employees satisfaction towards the quality of work life.
REFERENCE

Books:

1. K. Aswathappa (1997),Human Resources and Personnel ManagementTata

McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi-110 0012. C.R. Kothari
(2001) Research Methodology of Wishwa Prakashan publishing, Chennai -17

Websites:

www.citehr.edu

www.mbaguys.net

www.centralexciseChennai.gov.in
QUESTIONARIES

1. Name of the employee

2. Age
A. Below 20
B. 21 to 30
C. 31 to 40
D. Abov40
3. Gender
A. Male
B. Female
4. Marital Status
A. Married
B. Unmarried
5. Qualification
A. SSLC
B. HSC
C. Diploma/ITI
D. Degree
E. PG
6. Salary
A. Below 10000
B. 10001 to 20000
C. 20001 to 30000
D. Above 30000
7. Experience
A. 1 to 2 years
B. 2 to 3 years
C. Above 3 years
8. Do you feel when you are doing the job according to your job profile?
A. Yes
B. No

9. Do you finish every work assigned to you within the time limit?
A. Always
B. Some times

10.Do you require the guidance from your superior?

A. Always
B. Some times
C. Never

11.Do you feel you need training to perform your work?

A. Yes
B. No
C. Cant say

12.Do you feel the type of work you were performing at the time of your
joining and today are the same?
A. Yes
B. No

13.Knowledge is critical for your kind of organization?

A. Yes
B. No
C. Cant say

14.There is job security

A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Disagree
D. Strongly Disagree
15.How often do you find work stressful?
A. Always
B. Often
C. Sometimes
D. Never

16.What are the sources of knowledge in this organization?

A. Report and journals
B. Meeting and group discussion
C. Experience of the incidence sharing
D. Others

17.How knowledge is shared among different departments of this organization?

A. Formal meeting
B. Informal meeting/ chat

18.What is the current status of Quality of work life in your company?

A. Not in existence at all
B. Nascent stage
C. Introduction stage
D. Growth stage

19.Does food testing a part in sharing knowledge in this organization?

A. Yes
B. No
C. Cant say

20.Is available knowledge exploited to an adequate extent in this organization?

A. Yes
B. No
C. Cant say
21.Do you undertake additional personal efforts to enhance your knowledge
level and improve your competency?
A. Invariably
B. Frequently
C. Rarely
D. Never
22.What additional personal efforts do you undertake to enhance your
knowledge level improve your competency?
A. Further education and training in my own time
B. Personal effort
C. Private research work
D. Magazines

23.Do you share your learning with your colleagues?

A. Invariably
B. Frequently
C. Rarely
D. Never

24.Which one is the biggest cultural barrier in Quality of work life in company?
A. I am in position attitude
B. In different of people toward developmental process
C. Lack of significant and recognition to knowledge sharing
D. Lack of open mindedness

25.What is the biggest hurdle in effective implementation of QWL in company

A. Changing peoples behaviour from knowledge hoarding to knowledge

sharing
B. Lack of understanding of QWL and its benefits.
C. Determining what kind of knowledge to be managed & making it
available.
D. Justifying the use of scarce resources for QWL
E. Lack of top management commitment to QWL
F. Overcoming technological limitations.
G. Attracting & retaining talented people.