PR ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATIONS: ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-201

Sir, the motion moved by Mr. Mehta raises two points, if I understand it correctly. One point is that the Government failed to consult the representatives of Trade Unions when they last raised the dearness allowance. The second point which is raised in the motion is that the dearness allowances which were announced on the 21st of January last were meagre and inadequate. Sir, I am sorry to say that although I have every sympathy with Mr. Mehta for bringing forward this motion, I am bound to say that the motion has been based upon misunderstanding. Sir, I will take the first question, namely, the dearness allowances announced by the Government of India are meagre and inadequate. Sir, with regard¹²⁰ to the meagreness of the allowances, the point that I would like the House to bear in mind is that¹⁴⁰ (1) there is no final decision at which the Government has arrived. It cannot be said that the figures that they¹⁶⁰ have announced by the notification of the 23rd February are not to be altered or are not to be increased. There is the case that those figures do not grant adequate dearness allowance. But as I said, there is no finality about it. The situation is still fluid and it is a matter for consideration now for the Government as to the form which the dearness allowance should take. It has to be decided whether the dearness allowance should take²⁴⁰ the form of cash allowance or it should take the form of food provision, before the Government can fix upon any particular pitch at which dearness allowance should be fixed. Therefore, my submission on that point is that it cannot²⁸⁰be said that the Government has taken any decision (2) which can be said to be irretrievable and irreversible.

With regard to meagreness and inadequacy, the matter is still open and it may be considered at the appropriate time. Coming to³²⁰ the second accusation that the Government did not consult the representatives of Trade Unions, I think it is necessary to bear in mind that in the first place there are some difficulties in the matter of establishing contact with labour.³⁶⁰ The difficulty is this. As my honourable friend Mr. Mehta knows, so far as the railways are concerned, there are Unions which have been federated into a single organisation and it makes matters quite easy for the Government to establish contact with workers on the Railways to obtain their opinion and to consult them whenever occasion for consultation arises.⁴²⁰ I think Mr. Mehta will admit that the Government has been doing that. In fact, the convention has already been established and has been practised without any departure that the (3) Railway Board and the Railwaymen’s Federation meet twice a year to discuss matters of common concern. Then, Sir, under the Central Government, there are employees of the Posts and Telegraph⁴⁸⁰ Department. As I understand, there are twelve Unions which represent the posts and telegraph workers of the Central Government. Out of them, four are Unions representing the higher officers and eight represent the union of workers. Unfortunately, there is no single body, no Federation of the different workers of the Posts and Telegraph Department and consequently it has not been possible to establish the same sort of contact which it is possible for the Railway Board to establish with the⁵⁶⁰ Railwaymen’s Federation. But I do like to point out the fact that notwithstanding this difficulty, the Government had as a matter of fact established contact with the posts and telegraph workers before taking action. I should like to read to the⁶⁰⁰ House a short paragraph from a magazine called the (4) Telegraph Review, which records the attempts made by the Posts and Telegraph Department to establish contact with the workers in the Posts and Telegraph. I am sorry I have not got⁶⁴⁰ the time to read the whole of it. If my honourable friend wants, I can pass it on to him for his perusal. The point that I am making is that so far as the Posts and Telegraph Department workers are concerned, it cannot be said that there was no consultation between the Government and the workers concerned before the⁷⁰⁰ announcement was made. Then, Sir, there remain what are called the clerical employees of the Central Government. So far as⁷²⁰ this body of workers is concerned, there is no Union, and as there is no Union, there is also no Federation of the employees. What exists is a certain Association. The House will be glad to see that they sent their representatives to the Central Government and they were (5) granted interview by the Honourable Home Minister and the Finance Minister before this announcement was made. I think I am justified in saying what I said at the beginning, that the⁸⁰⁰ allegations made by Mr. Mehta on which his motion was founded were really not correct. The Government has all along maintained the position it has always taken, namely, it consults the workers as far as possible.

Sir, I rise to⁸⁴⁰ reply to the criticism made by Honourable Members during the course of this debate on certain points or acts of commission and omission with which the Labour Department is concerned. Sir, I will begin with the points raised by Mr. James. As the House is aware, so far as the Labour Department is concerned, these were two points to which he devoted special attention. The first one is the point which relates to paper. Mr. James paid great attention to the point how the Government of India was (6) extravagant in the use of paper and how in every direction the Government was responsible for what he called waste. Sir, this question of paper, as the House will recall, was⁹⁶⁰ once debated in the course of this Session on an adjournment motion when I gave a reply on behalf of⁹⁸⁰ the Government. It is quite clear that my honourable friend Mr. James was not satisfied with the reply given by the Government and has returned to the subject again. I make no complaint of his returning to the subject again. I am glad that it does give me another opportunity to explain what the Government is doing in the matter of conservation of paper. Sir, before I enter into the subject matter, it might be desirable to tell the House that it seems to me that the House is exhibiting a certain degree of over-anxiety that there is a shortage¹⁰⁸⁰ of paper, but I am not quite convinced that (7) there is what we might call acute suffering in the matter. I am not saying that shortage of paper is not a question with which we are not concerned. As I¹¹²⁰ said, there is shortage, but what I want to emphasise is that there is not a case of what we might call acute suffering. Sir, proceeding further, as the House will remember, Mr. James depended upon two illustrations in order to substantiate his charge of extravagance against the Government of India. Last time when the subject was debated, Mr. James brought out a rent bill which is issued from the Western Court to the tenants who occupy that building. His¹²⁰⁰ case was that the rent bill which was presented to the tenants was a document of great enormity which contained details which were probably unnecessary and which could have been cut down in the period of the war. This time he brought out a worn-out copy of the (8) Calcutta Gazette and pointed out that there were published in the¹²⁶⁰ Gazette certain information which could have been avoided in the course of the war. Now, Sir, the point I would¹²⁸⁰ like to make is this. If Mr. James was a lawyer, I am sure he would not have brought forth these two cases as illustrations of the points he was making. With regard to the rent bill, Mr. James evidently¹³²⁰ forgot to look up the date on which it was printed. I think the Government of India ought to be congratulated that rather than destroying the old bills, the stock of which exists with the Government of India, the Government of India had laid aside all requirements of reforming the bill and was bent upon using the old stock which it possessed in order to conserve paper. Sir, with regard to the question of the Gazette, I think a slip¹⁴⁰⁰ (9) was committed by Mr. James by reason of the fact that he was not able to appreciate the importance of the Gazette. The Gazette is not merely a matter which contains useful information for the Government, but as every lawyer¹⁴⁴⁰ knows, the Gazette is the only document where in some cases proof can be given by nothing else in a court of law except by the production of the Gazette. According to the Evidence Act, the Government Gazette is the only primary evidence by which certain things can be proved. I would therefore ask Mr. James that whatever else we may do with regard to economics in Government paper, the Gazette is the last thing which we ought to touch. The reason obviously is that every Provincial Government must publish its own Provincial Gazette as prescribed by the Government of¹⁵⁴⁰ (10) India Act. But, Sir, I do not wish to rely upon what might be called a rhetorical reply to meet¹⁵⁶⁰ the argument of my honourable friend. I propose to refer to the practical steps which the Government of India has taken in order to economise paper.