Sir,
there are several Standing Committees attached to the different
Departments, but there is no Standing Committee of this House which
numbers only three. Now, what can be the reason for the small number
of Members elected by this House? Either the Labour Department
is not an important Department, or it may be due to the
fact that the Standing Committee is never called, or called very rarely, to
discuss any matter. I should like to have information on either of these
two subjects. Is the Labour Department an important Department? I find that
it is in charge of a very eminent person like Dr. Ambedkar. Even if it
was an unimportant Department before, it should cease to be an120 unimportant Department at the present
day at least so long as he is in control of the subject. But if140 it is to be an important Department,
the Standing Committee should consist of a much larger number of
persons. Look160 at the
Standing Finance Committee, look at the Standing Finance Committee for
Railways, and look at the Public Accounts Committee. The number of Members of
any of these Committees is much larger than three. I am told that
this Committee does not meet very often. I do not know whether it is
a fact and that even when it meets, not much business is placed before this
Committee. If that be so, I am afraid the utility of the Committee240 will be greatly diminished. I,
therefore, appeal to the Government to increase the number of
Members to eight. I understand that two Members are selected from the other
place. I suggest that eight Members should be elected by this House. 280 If you like, you may increase
the number of Members given to the other House.
Sir,
I am very glad to notice that this motion of mine has excited so much
interest from the House. The number three, as320 I understand, is based neither on the importance
nor on any other consideration, but I am told that it is a standard
number and that if there are any enlargements or deviations
from the standard number, they constitute only an exception360 and not the rule. Now, Sir, with
regard to the point raised by my honourable friend that the reason
why the number was fixed at three is because the Department pays scant
courtesy to this Committee, it is not borne out by facts. The House will notice
that last year there were two meetings of this Committee held and some420 very important business was placed
before the Committee. For instance, at the two meetings that were held
last year, the subject matter that was placed before the Committee included the
conclusions of the Labour Conference, report of the Technical Training Inquiry
Committee, scheme for the training of skilled artisans and accommodation
in Delhi. This year, one meeting was held and the480 business placed before the Committee
included conclusions of the second Conference of Labour Ministers and
progress made with the technical training under the training scheme. Then the
next meeting was held and there was also an adjourned meeting held
subsequently. The proceedings of the third Conference of Labour Ministers, the
summary of the views of the employers and workers’ representatives on
certain subjects, building programme in Delhi and Shimla, proposals
relating to the recognition of Trade Unions, and progress560 made with the technical training under
the training scheme were the subjects that were placed before the
meeting of the Committee.
I
am sure nobody can say that the Department has
not been placing before the Committee matters which are of600 importance and interest to Labour. Then,
the other thing I would like to submit to the House is that
this is not the only Committee to advise the Labour Department. Besides
this, we have now instituted a Plenary Conference640 which consists of representatives of the
Central Government, Provincial Governments, and also of the Indian
States. The representatives of employers and of labour are also represented
on the Plenary Conference on a very extensive scale. There is no case for so
large an increase asked for by the Honourable Member. In addition to that, we
have also got the Standing Labour Advisory700
Committee. Having regard to the circumstances, I hold the view that if there
was any case for the enlargement of the720
personnel of the Committee, that case has considerably suffered by reason of
the constitution of the Plenary Conference as well as by the Standing Labour
Committee. However, if my honourable friend is anxious that the
personnel of this Committee should be increased, I am prepared to
increase the number to eight and I hope this will satisfy my honourable
friends in this House.
Sir,
in view of the observations made by my honourable friend, it
is only proper that800 I
should rise to state the position of Government on the points that he has
made. In a certain sense, the remarks of Mr. Joshi might appear to be irrelevant.
We are discussing the Tea Control Act and obviously any840 provisions dealing with conditions of
labour would be entirely out of place therein. But looking at it from a larger point
of view, it must be admitted that when the State is asked to suspend
the laws of supply and demand with regard to any industry, it is fair that
those who are interested in labour should ask that their interests
should be protected. It is from this point of view that I say that a reply from
the Government is necessary. Sir, the first point which Mr. Joshi made was that
it is now more than 12 years since the Royal Commission on Labour reported
and that the Government of India has practically done nothing with regard to
the recommendations960 of that
Commission. Sir, I agree that 12 years is a long period for any
Government to take in980 order
to deal with the recommendations made by a Royal Commission which was
appointed to investigate into this matter. But I think on the facts which I
propose to refer to in the brief remarks that I am making, the House will also
realise that much serious blame would not be laid at the door of the
Government of India.
As
the Honourable Member will remember, the Royal Commission on Labour made five
recommendations with regard to the tea plantation. The first recommendation was
that the Assam Labour and Emigration Act should be repealed and another Act
permitting much greater fluidity to the1080
labour should be enacted. The second recommendation was to establish a wage
board for fixing the wages of labourers there. The third recommendation dealt
with the appointment of a Board of Health for the welfare of labour in
convenient areas1120 with
power to make regulations relating to the drinking water, sanitation,
drainage, medical facilities and housing. The fourth recommendation was
that provisions relating to the regular and prompt payment of wages and deductions
to be made for advances made to labour should be applied to plantation labour.
The last recommendation was that provision should be made in order
that access to public should be provided to gardens. Now, when the
recommendations were made, it is important to bear in mind that1200 the Government of India without loss of
time examined these recommendations in order to find out which was the
proper authority to deal with them. They came to the conclusion that
except the first recommendation which dealt with the repeal of the Emigration
Act and substitution of another, all these would be regarded as
fundamentally of local concern.1260
I do not think anybody could contend that the attitude taken by the
Government of India in the matter of1280
dividing responsibility with regard to these recommendations was
incorrect. I submit that it was in pursuance of the decision that
the Government of India took on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on
Labour. They immediately addressed a despatch to the1320 Assam Government informing them that
liberty was given to the Local Government to deal with other recommendations,
and the Government of India without loss of time proceeded to pass the Act
which is now on the Statute Book and which covers the first recommendation of
the Royal Commission on Labour. Sir, unfortunately, the Local Government of
Assam did not move in the matter, and my honourable friend also did not
or does not appear to me to have taken1400
up the question at all. But, Sir, if I may claim credit for the Government of
India, the Government of India did move in the matter.
I
would like to inform the House that when the Tea
Control Act came up1440 for
extension in the Legislature, the Government of India did take initiative and
approached the planting industry with a proposal for making enquiry into the
conditions of labour in plantation. As my honourable friends will
recall, almost at a time when matters were heading for a decision, the new
Assam Government, which was the Congress Government, thought it fit to step
into the matter and by a Resolution appointed a committee. As my honourable
friend, Mr. Joshi, referred to the question, I am not prepared to say
what exactly was the reason, but somehow there was a clash between1540 the members who were on the Committee
and the clash developed almost to a conflict with the result that the work1560 of the Committee was suspended.
Ultimately, the Government of Assam took no action. All that they did was to
issue a notification as to what happened and why the Committee was suspended.
