Sir, I am
not against Trade Unions. They serve a very useful purpose. But it would
be a great mistake to suppose that Trade Unions are a panacea for
all the ills of labour. Trade Unions, even if they are powerful, are not strong
enough to compel capitalists to run capitalism better. Trade Unions would be
much more effective if they had behind them a Labour Government to rely
on. Unless the Trade Unionism aims at controlling the Government, Trade Unions
will do very little good to the workers and will be a source of perpetual
fights among Trade Union leaders.
Another sin
of the labouring classes is the easy way in which they are led away by an appeal120
to nationalism. The working classes who are beggared in every way and who have
very little to spare, often sacrifice140 (1) their all to the so-called cause of nationalism.
They have never cared to enquire whether the nationalism for which they160
are to make their offerings will give them social and economic equality. More
often than not, the free independent national state which emerges from a
successful nationalism and which grows on their sacrifices, turns to be the
enemy of the working class under the leadership of their masters. This is the
worst kind of exploitation that Labour has allowed itself to be subjected to.
If the working classes have to live under a system of Parliamentary Democracy,
then it must240 devise the best possible means to turn it to
their benefit. As far as I can see, two things are necessary if this
object is to be achieved. First thing to do is to discard mere establishment of
Trade Unions280 as the final aim and object of Labour in India. (2) It must declare that its aim is to
put labour in charge of the Government. For this, it must organize a Labour
Party as a political party. Such a party320 will no doubt cover Trade Unions in
its organization. But it must be free from the narrow and cramping
vision of Trade Unionism, with its stress on the immediate gain at the cost of
ultimate benefit and with the vested360 right of Trade Union officials to
represent Labour. It must equally dissociate itself from communal or capitalistic
political parties simply because these bodies claim to be fighting for
the freedom of India. Labour by a separate political organization of its ranks
can serve both the purposes. It can fight the battle of India’s freedom
better by freeing itself from the420 clutches of such bodies. It can prevent
itself from being defrauded in the name of nationalism. The second thing
for Labour in India to realize is that without knowledge (3) there is no power. When a Labour Party is formed in India
and when such a party puts forth its claim to be voted to power before the
electorate, the question480 is sure to be asked whether Labour is
fit to govern. It would be no answer to say that Labour could not
govern worse or display greater bankruptcy in home or foreign affairs than the
other classes. Labour will have to prove positively that it can govern
better. Let it not be forgotten that the pattern of Labour Government is more
difficult than that of the other classes. A Labour Government cannot be a
government of laissez faire. It will be560 a government which
must essentially be based on a system of control. A system of control needs
a far greater degree of knowledge and training than a laissez faire government
does. Unfortunately, Labour in India has not realized the600 importance of study.
All that Labour leaders in India have (4) done is to learn how best to abuse industrialists.
Abuse and more abuse has become an obsession for them. I am therefore very glad
to find that the Indian Federation640 of Labour has recognized this defect and
has come forward to open these study circles for the labouring classes. They
are going to be the most effective means of making Labour fit to govern. I
hope the Federation will not forget the other necessity, namely, to
inaugurate a Labour Party. When this is done, the Federation will
deserve the thanks700 of the labouring classes to have raised
them to the status of a governing class.
Sir, the
motion is merely720 for circulation for the purpose
of eliciting public opinion on this measure. That being so, it
seems to me unnecessary to take the time of the House to deal in
any detailed manner with the provisions which are embodied in this Bill.
It is enough, I think, to tell the House (5) what the main features
of the Bill are and what has led the Government to undertake this particular piece
of legislation. The Bill has three important features. In the800
first place, the Bill seeks to compel an employer to recognise a Trade Union.
In the second place, the Bill imposes certain conditions on a Trade
Union in order to make the Trade Union worthy of recognition by an employer. 840
The third feature of the Bill is to make non-recognition by an employer of a Trade
Union, which has observed all the conditions prescribed in this measure
and which has therefore qualified itself for recognition, an offence which
is made punishable by law. As I said, it is unnecessary to
discuss the merits of this measure. The motion is for circulation
which obviously means that the provisions embodied in the Bill by the
Government at the present stage are only tentative. There is no
finality about it, and the Government (6) does not propose to make
these provisions final unless they have received the opinions of leaders
of labour, employers, Provincial Governments and other parties
who are concerned in this measure. 960 The Bill may therefore be quite
different from what it is now, when the Government has applied its mind980
to the various suggestions that it hopes to receive as a result
of circulation.
All that I
propose to say is to tell the House what has led the Government of India to
take this responsibility upon its shoulders. The House will recall that this
matter was considered and great deal of attention was devoted to the question
of the recognition of Trade Unions by employer, and all those Honourable
Members who have read the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour
will realise what great emphasis the Royal Commission laid on the recognition
of Trade Unions as a measure for1080 the healthy growth of Trade Unions and
for amicable (7) relations between employers and
workers. The House will also remember that the Royal Commission at
that stage stated that they would very much desire if the
recognition was achieved voluntarily1120 by the consent of the employers without
any legal obligation upon them. The House will also remember that the Royal
Commission had submitted its report 12 years ago, and there has been no willingness
on the part of employers to recognise Trade Union voluntarily. Indeed, the
objections which the employers made before the Royal Commission for opposing
the recognition of Trade Unions are still the objections which the employers
are pressing for non-recognition. Consequently, the situation has certainly not
improved.1200
As Honourable Members will remember, this question was taken up after 1937 when
provincial autonomy came into being, by most of the Provincial
Governments which came and took office under the new Act. There were both private
measures and measures introduced by the Ministries in order to bring about
recognition (8) of Trade Unions by employers. For
instance, in Madras there1260 was a private Bill brought in, there
was also a Government measure brought in by the Ministry of the day. 1280
In Bombay, the Government brought in a measure called the Bombay Trade
Disputes Act. Unfortunately, except in the case of Bombay, the
Ministries in other provinces resigned before their projects could assume a
statutory character. However, the Government of India, after provincial autonomy
had come into existence, had inaugurated a system of collaboration
between the Centre and the provinces and one of the means adopted for
collaboration was to inaugurate what were called Labour Ministers’ Conferences.
The First Labour Ministers’ Conference was held in 1940 when this subject was
discussed between the Provincial Governments and the Central Government. It was
then decided that there was not enough material before the Conference to
come to any definite conclusion on the matter.1400 (9) The Conference gave instructions to the Central Government that
the matter should be referred to the Provincial Governments in order to
elicit opinion from the Provincial Governments as well as leaders of
labour and employers and that the1440 material should be placed at
the second session of the Labour Ministers’ Conference which was proposed
to be held in the year 1941. Accordingly, the Government of India addressed a
letter to the Provincial Governments asking them to collect the opinions
of the different parties relating to this measure, and a very large body
of opinion was collected by the different Provincial Governments and forwarded
to the Central Government with the opinions of the different provinces on them.
The whole of1400 this was placed before the Labour Ministers’
Conference and the conclusion reached then was that the Central Government
should undertake (10) legislation,
that that legislation should not be purely provincial and that draft should be
prepared on the basis of the1440 replies that were received from
the Provincial Governments and from the various parties which were
concerned with this matter. As a result of this, the Government of
India undertook the task and the present Bill is really the result1600
of the sifting of the information which the Central Government received and the
opinions which were expressed by the various parties concerned. 1622
