Sir, the Bill, which I have the honour to move
for circulation, has given rise to controversy. This is, of course, not unexpected.
As I said in my opening observations, the Bill is undoubtedly a
controversial measure. But I also stated in the course of my opening
observations that I do not propose to enter into the controversy today
and to reply to the various points that have been made. I do not
do so in any spirit or discourtesy to Honourable Members who have
taken part in this debate and presented their point of view. I
assure them that I will bear their points in mind and consider their validity
on the occasion when such occasion will arise. 120
If I rise at this stage, it is not to
reply to the various points that have been made but I140 (1) do feel that I am bound to meet certain points of
criticism which were made by my honourable friend. There is one
point which he made which, I think, was very unfair. He said that I have
brought in a measure which was vague in some way and which contained
empty clauses. His criticism was that I was not justified and that it
was unfair on my part to ask the House to consider a Bill
which contained such vague and empty clauses. I do not accept that criticism
and I do say that it was entirely misconceived and unfounded. 240
I do not admit in the first instance that there are any clauses in
this Bill which are vague or that there are any clauses in this
Bill which are empty, so empty as not to enable anybody to understand280
what the Bill aims at. But assuming for a (2)
moment that there are certain clauses which are vague and other clauses
which require content to be put in, I do not think that the criticism was
valid. If I asked the House to proceed to enact the measure in the form in
which it was presented, I could have understood the point of the
criticism but that is not what I am doing. I am asking merely the
permission360
of the House that this Bill may be circulated for the
purpose of eliciting further opinion, so that the Government may have
guidance from such parties as can give guidance and the Government
in the end may be able to fill in the gaps and make definite what is
vague. I therefore submit that there was no point in that criticism420
which my honourable friend made. My honourable friend then said that
the Bill in his opinion was unsound in principle. Well, that
is a matter of opinion.
We have (3) heard
people on the other side saying that there is a perfectly sound
principle in the Bill and that it ought to be embodied in an Act.
Therefore, I shall not480 dwell on that point of his criticism.
The second point that he made was that I have somehow not stated
what a representative trade union was. Without meaning any offence, if I may
say so, he has either not read the clauses of the Bill, or if he has read them,
he has not understood them. It is perfectly clear from the
provisions that are set out in this Bill that there are
two principal conditions laid down. One is560 that a trade union, before it can be
recognised, must fulfil certain conditions. The second condition which has
been laid down is that mere fulfilment of the conditions laid down is not a
qualification enough for recognition but that the600 trade union, in
addition to fulfilling these qualifications, will (4) have to undergo the test of a certification by a Board. In
fact, if I may say so, the fundamental principle of the Bill is
that the representative character of the trade union will depend primarily, subject
to other conditions, on the certificate that a tripartite Board, representing
Labour, Government and the Employers, will be able to give.
My honourable friend
then made great play of clause 28D which says, ‘any further conditions that
may be prescribed’. I cannot understand how my honourable friend
could have so completely misunderstood the purport700 of that clause.
The position of the Government is perfectly plain and may be stated
briefly. On the basis of720 the views that were communicated to us
from the various organisations representing labour and capital, the Government
came to the conclusion that the positive conditions which they have laid down
ought to be sufficient. But the Government does not wish to dogmatise
about it and the Government does feel (5)
that there might be certain conditions which either the Provincial
Government or the employers of labour or capital may find necessary to be
introduced in this Bill before recognition is granted. It is to make provision
for a contingency of this kind that we have introduced these
clauses wherever it is stated that further conditions may be prescribed. It is
a loophole; it is an opportunity which we have left and840
designed to take to ourselves the benefit of any advice that we might receive.
There is certainly
no vagueness and no uncertainty with regard to the provisions of the
Bill as to what a representative character means. It is not a blank mind; it is an open
mind. That is the way I would like to define my position
correctly. My honourable friend as well as other Members who spoke on the Bill
said that the Government was not justified or rather, the Government was
illogical in applying clause 27 (6) by
exempting the Government undertakings from the operation of this Bill. Now,
Sir, the first point that I would like to make in reply to the contention is
that logic960
is certainly not always life. There are many occasions when illogicality
would reduce ourselves to extremism and I do not think980
any man would prefer extremism to illogicality. I think, if anything could
be said with regard to clause 28, it could be said that the Government
is not timid, the Government is not illogical; the Government is wise and cautious.
I think that this clause has been somewhat misunderstood. There is no
intention to exempt the Government from the provisions of this Bill. All
that is said is that a date will be fixed when the provisions of this Bill will
be applied to the Government undertakings. Therefore, if there is any
discrimination made in favour of the Government, 1080 it is not
with regard to the application of (7) the
Bill but with regard to the date on which it will become applicable to
the Government. The Government feels that, at any rate for the
present, the Government Departments who are1120 employers of labour have made
sufficient provision for the recognition of their trade unions. In view of the
fact that the Government has certainly been far more ready to recognise
Trade Unions than private employers, I do not think that the interests
of labour will suffer if the date for the application of this Bill is
postponed.
Sir, industrialization of India has been in the
air for many years. But one fails to notice any serious drive to bring1200
about industrialization. There are still some who pay only lip service
to it. Others look upon it as a fad, if not a craze. There are very many who
are never tired of preaching that India is an agricultural country and
therefore the best thing to do is to (8)
devote all energy to improve agriculture and not to run after
industrialization. 1260 Nobody needs to be told that
India is primarily an agricultural country. Everybody knows it. What is
surprising is that very few people seem to realize what a great misfortune
it is. I know this will not be readily admitted. What more evidence is
wanted to prove that this is a misfortune than the famine which is
stalking Bengal and other parts of India and where so many from the
agricultural population are dying daily from want of food or from want
of purchasing power? To my mind, there can be no greater proof to
show that India’s agriculture has failed miserably. It is a plain fact
that India which is engaged in producing nothing but food does not even produce
sufficient food to feed its people.
The poverty of India, to my mind, is entirely due (9) to its being1400 made dependent upon
agriculture. Population in India grows decade by decade in geometrical
progression. As against this unlimited growth of population, what is available
for cultivation is not merely a limited amount of land whose fertility
is diminishing year by year. 1440 India is caught between two sides of a
pincer, the one side of which is a progressive increase in population and the
other is a progressive increase in the deterioration of the soil. The result is
that at the end of a decade we are left with a negative balance between
population and production and a constant squeezing of the standard of living. At
every decade, this negative balance between population and production is
increasing in an alarming degree, leaving India with the inheritance of
poverty, more poverty and chronic poverty. A rot (10) has set in. This rot, I feel sure, is not going to be stopped
by organizing agricultural exhibitions or animal shows or by propaganda in
favour of better manuring. It can stop only when agriculture is made
profitable.
1572
