Sir,
I do not think it would be necessary for me to take much time of
the House in order to command this measure to the Honourable
Members. The main provisions of the Bill are three. First, the Bill seeks
to give compensation to workmen who may become victims of war injuries; second,
the Bill seeks to make employers liable for such compensation; and third, the
Bill seeks to compel employers to insure against liabilities imposed upon them.
Now, taking the question of compensation, the point to which I wish to draw the
attention of the House is that this Bill is a linked measure. It
is linked to Workmen’s Compensation Act. Now, Sir, the relationship of
this Bill to120 the War
Injuries Ordinance to which I have made a reference is plain. As
Honourable Members will recall, the War140
(1) Injuries Ordinance defines what is called the qualifying injuries.
Those injuries are classified in that Ordinance. What the present160 Bill does is to adopt the scope and
limits of the qualifying injuries as has been defined in the War
Injuries Ordinance. As to the question of relationship of the present Bill to
the Workmen’s Compensation Act, that will be clear to the Honourable
Members from the fact that the amount of compensation which has been
fixed in this Bill for the victim of war injuries more or less
follows the scale that has been fixed in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. 240 Now, Sir, the reason for bringing this
measure is this. After the War Injuries Ordinance was passed, a question was
raised whether the payment made to a workman who unfortunately happened to
sustain what is called the qualifying injuries should280 be a sort of relief or should be
compensation. (2) The difference between relief and compensation is
quite obvious. Relief is merely to help a person to get over the difficulties
to which he might be reduced by reason320
of the incapacity which he suffers by a war injury and which prevents him from
earning normal wages. On the other hand, compensation, according to
the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, seeks to make payment which
compensates him fully for360
the loss which he incurs. When this question was raised, a reference was made
to the conditions that were prevailing in England and it was found that
the British Parliament passed an enactment which is known as the
War Injuries Miscellaneous Act. On examination of the provisions of this
English Law, it was found that the payments which were allowed under420 that Act amounted to compensation and
not merely relief. Obviously, the question arose whether it was not
desirable for the Government of India to follow the principle which was laid (3)
down in this English statute. Secondly, some of the employers, on their
own accord after the passing of the War Injuries Ordinance, addressed a
letter to the Government480 of
India stating that from their point of view the provisions made in the War
Injuries Ordinance were not sufficient for the maintenance of the morale of
labour and that compensation should be paid in order that the labourers working
in disturbed areas may remain steady at that work. From both these points of
view, the Government of India accepted the principle of giving compensation to
workmen in place of what was originally thought to be only relief. On examining
the560 provisions of the War
Injuries Ordinance, it was found that at a level of about Rs. 24, the payments
made under the War Injuries Ordinance constituted not only relief but also
compensation. What is therefore necessary to do is600 to give the workman some additional
rebate which will make payments made (4) to him amount to compensation.
That means to supplement what he gets under the ordinance so that what he will
get will also amount to compensation. 640
This measure, therefore, is a measure which is a supplementary measure, which
supplements the provisions of War Injuries Ordinance.
Having
explained to the House the main provision of compensation and how the Bill was
linked up to the War Injuries Ordinance as well as to the Workmen’s
Compensation Act and having explained to the House the reason which led the
Government of700 India to
bring in this supplementary legislation, I will proceed to explain the second
main provision of the720 Bill,
namely to make the employer liable for such compensation. It might be said
that while under the provisions of the War Injuries Ordinance, it was the Government
which was undertaking the liability to pay relief, the Government should also undertake
similar liability for making compensation to those to whom this present Bill
applies. (5) It is quite obvious that it is not possible for
the Government to undertake the liability which under the circumstances of
the case may almost amount800
to anything. If India remains as it is, there may be no liability
arising out of this. If the situation worsens, the liability may be quite
indefinite and having regard to the capacity of the Government of India,
it is840 quite obvious that
the Government cannot be asked to undertake such indefinite liability.
Secondly, I do not think that much can be made of the fact that the Government
is not undertaking liability in this matter for it will be
realised that whatever amount of compensation the employer may be called upon
to pay under the liability which we are imposing upon him, it would
be regarded as an admissible revenue expenditure, and consequently, the
burden would ultimately fall upon the Treasury.
I
might also mention that while the Government of
India is seeking (6) to impose this liability upon the employers, the
Government of India is not forgetting its own obligations to its own employees.
Honourable Members will find a960
clause there stating that this Bill does not apply to the servants of
the Crown or to the employees of980
the Federal Railway. But that does not mean that these employees are not going
to get the benefit similar to those which we are providing in this
Bill. I should like to inform the House that the Federal Railways as
well as the Government of India have informed their employees that they
would be prepared to extend the provisions of extra pensions which are
contained in the Civil Service Regulations and in the Statutory Rules governing
the employment of railwaymen. Now, Sir, the third provision which seeks to
compel the employer to insure the liability imposed upon him is a1080 very necessary and a very
salutary provision. The object of making this provision is (7) to ensure
that the workmen at all times will get the compensation for which this
Bill seeks to make provision. It may be that if1120 a factory is bombed or demolished, the
assets of an employer are destroyed and if any provision of the sort that is
sought to be made in this Bill is in existence, notwithstanding the
benefit which the Act extends to the workmen, it may in the final analysis
leave the workmen where they are without any opportunity of getting
compensation which is provided for. Insurance, therefore, is guaranteed to the
workman that in all circumstances the benefits which the Bill1200 seeks to give him will be there for him,
if he receives the war injury. The working of the system will be somewhat as
follows. The payment will be made by the employer to the employee in
the first instance in regard to the terms of the Bill. The employer
will be reimbursed out of (8) an insurance fund1260 which may be managed by the
Government. The employer will contribute to this insurance fund the premium
which will be settled1280
at the end of the war when the total liability will be known. In
the meanwhile, the Government will be recovering advances from employers
against the final premium which will be settled after the war. The
quantum of advance will vary from quarter to quarter. In the first quarter, the
advance will not exceed 25 per cent of the wage bill. For subsequent quarters,
it will change depending upon the liability that may be outstanding. It
may be that there have been no casualties in the preceding quarter.
If that is so, it is obvious that no advances will be recovered from the
employer.
As
I said, the advantage of the insurance scheme
is that it ensures the workmen a payment.1400
Secondly, the risk is distributed. (9)
Those safer areas, which are not exposed to any attack, will also
be contributing towards the payment of compensation to workmen living and
working in areas which have been attacked. Thirdly, the burden is1440 proportionate because it is
based upon the wage bill of each employer. It will therefore be seen that
the Bill is a very simple measure. I would also say that
it is a non-controversial measure. The House would like to know that the
idea of the Bill came from the Millowners Association in Bombay. On
their suggestion, the employers were consulted, employers’ organisations were
approached and two All-India organisations of industrial employers have
completely supported the measure. With regard to employers’ federation, that
organisation unfortunately was divided. One section is in favour, and the other
is not. So far as labour representations are concerned, the Standing (10)
Labour Committee unanimously recommended this measure. I do not think
that anything more is necessary to enable the House to understand fully
the provisions of this Bill.1570
