Sir,
I am glad to find such a general support accorded to the measure which I
had the pleasure of moving this morning. The words of criticism which have
emerged are indeed surprisingly few, and most of them came from my honourable
friends, Mr. Miller and Mr. Joshi. My honourable friend, Mr. Miller, said that
it was necessary that the Government should give more information with
regard to the measure. I shall always be glad to give him whatever
information he wants if he would kindly let me know the points which are
troubling his mind. With regard to the other question which he raised, namely,
that in his mind there appeared a certain discrimination between the rates we
were120 paying under the War
Injuries Ordinance and the rates we proposed to pay under the present
measure, I fear he140 (1)
is labouring under a misapprehension. That is because, as I tried to make out,
the object of this measure is160
really to equalise the position of those who are covered by the War
Injuries Ordinance and of those who are going to be covered by the present
measure. As I pointed out, on examination of the rates we offered to the war
injuries victims, we found that those who drew Rs. 24 and above only got relief
and those who drew Rs. 24 and below got compensation. What we propose to do now
by this measure is to give compensation240
to those who stand above Rs. 24. Therefore, my honourable friend will
see that far from creating a position which will be called discriminatory,
we are really equalising the position of all workmen to which both these
measures are going280 to
apply.
I
quite appreciate the point that my honourable (2) friend, Mr.
Miller, made, namely, that this measure is restricted to a certain type
of workmen or certain classes of workmen who are defined in clause 5. That is
quite320 obvious from the
provisions of the Bill itself. But, as I pointed out, there are two
circumstances. Firstly, it is not possible for the Government
to undertake the liability of paying compensation to all workmen. Secondly,
having regard to the360 fact
that any scheme of insurance which the Government can put forth must be
administratively workable, it follows that the Government cannot spread itself
out to cover all sorts of workmen.
It would be too much of liability for the Government to
take and the scheme will become administratively unworkable. In order that
we may run the insurance scheme, it420
is quite obvious that we must be able to locate an employer on whom
we can definitely place the liability and from whom we can recover the premium.
In the (3) case of general population, it is not possible
to locate someone on whom this liability could be imposed and from whom the
premium could be demanded. That is certainly the480 reason why we have been required to limit
the scheme to certain classes of workmen who have been
defined in clause 5. My honourable friend, Mr. Miller, said that we have
given no justification for confining our scheme to the classes of workmen who
have been defined in clause 5. Some of the answers which I could have
given to him have already been given by my honourable friend, Mr. Joshi,
and I do not propose to repeat them. 560
The answer really is to be found in the Statement of Objects and
Reasons itself. The Statement of Objects and Reasons makes it clear that
they are exposed to danger in factories and other industrial concerns. That is
as good a600 reason as any
could be given for confining this (4) measure to the classes of workmen
who are defined therein. It cannot be denied that factories and
industries are easy targets for enemy attack and the people working there are640 more exposed to danger than the general
population. My honourable friend, Mr. Joshi, raised the point that this Bill
does not apply to all workmen and he pointed out two particular cases in which
he desired that the provisions of this Bill should be extended, namely, to
the labourers working in Assam on tea plantations, and seamen. These are, 700 no doubt, cases which require some
particular answer. Now, Sir, my general answer to the criticism of Mr. Joshi,
with regard to720 these two
particular points is that the Government is quite aware of what he has
said and that is the reason why the Government has introduced a sub-clause in
clause 5, whereby the Government has reserved to itself the power of
extending the provisions of the Bill to other (5) workmen employed in
any employment. The Government does not regard that the categories of
workers defined are the final and that no occasion may arise to include others.
If
a800 situation arises when it
becomes clear to the Government that the provisions of this Bill should be
extended to workmen employed in other employments, the Government will
undoubtedly consider the matter. With regard to the question of Assam, the only
point I840 would like to make
is that we are confining the measure to workmen who are living in what
might be called exposed centres. To my mind and according to the
information we have at present, it cannot be said that the tea
plantations are exposed centres. If at any time the plantations do become
exposed centres and subject to risk, there is no doubt about it that
either Mr. Joshi may move in the matter or the Government will
take notice and see that the provisions of this (6) Bill are extended to
the labourers in Assam. With regard to the seamen, I think the matter
was brought forward by the Commerce Department and I
understand that there is a measure960
already in existence whereby a provision, analogous to the scheme that we are
having, is already in existence. If my980
honourable friend, Mr. Joshi, thinks that it is desirable that the
Select Committee should examine and make some provision, and if that
provision is not incongruous with the main features of the Bill, I will
certainly raise no objection for his considering the matter in the Select
Committee. My honourable friend, Mr. Miller, referred to one or two clauses in
the Bill. The first was sub-clause 5. To that, I have given my reply that the
Government has deliberately introduced that sub-clause by way of caution
because the Government thinks that the expedience may arise whereby the
provisions of this1080 Bill may
have to be extended. The other (7) section to which he referred was
section 10 of sub-clause (3). His point of criticism was that by this
provision the Government proposes that if any balance is left out of the1120 fund, the excess will be paid into the
general revenues. I understood Mr. Miller to say that this policy of the
Government of India was not justified by the circumstances of the case.
Sir, I am afraid I have
not got the information but I think the general fact is quite well
known. The Ordinance which requisitions the services of motor drivers is one of
those. After the Ordinance was passed, it was discovered that there
was one provision1200 which
was present in other Ordinance, but was absent in the Motor Drivers
Ordinance. That provision was that there was not anything in the Ordinance
requiring the owner to re-employ a motor driver after his services were
dispensed with by the authority which had requisitioned his services. It is (8)
to fill this gap that the present Bill has been1260 brought in. The purposes of the
amendment are three-fold. The amendment declares the employer’s liability to
re-employ a driver where1280
his services have been dispensed with by the Government. Secondly, it lays down
a method for the settlement of disputes as to the liability of the employer.
The Bill provides reference to authority nominated by the Provincial Government
on their behalf; and thirdly, there is a penalty for non-compliance with the
orders passed by the authority. Other provisions in the Bill relate to the
limitations on the right of employment which has been given to a motor driver
and they are two-fold. In the first place, a motor driver must have been
in continuous service for a period of six months before he can claim the
right to re-employment. Secondly, he must have applied for re-employment
within two months from1400 (9)
the date of discharge from the national service. These conditions being
satisfied, this present Bill puts him on the same level with other persons whose
services have been requisitioned. I have nothing more to say with
regard to this Bill. 1440
With regard to the observations which have fallen from my honourable friend, I
am bound to say that he has really given a very big and a dark colour to what
is likely to happen when an employer is called upon to reinstate his former
driver. He seems to think that this matter, once it becomes a subject matter of
dispute, would assume a form which lawyers call a long civil suit. But I am
sure it will be shorter than a shortcoat. We have made provision that the
Provincial Government will appoint an authority and I have no doubt (10)
that that authority will be an authority which would be satisfactory
to both sides. 1555
