Sir,
it might be desirable if I explain to the House why this amendment has become
necessary. Under the Mines Maternity Benefit Act, a woman working in the mine
is entitled to maternity benefit for a period of 8 weeks. This period of 8
weeks is divided into two parts of four weeks each, one part preceding delivery
and another part succeeding delivery. The four weeks before delivery is a
period of optional rest during which a woman may work and get full wages or
absent herself and get the maternity benefit. With regard to the four weeks
succeeding delivery, it is a period of compulsory rest during which the woman
must not work. In fact, it is unlawful and120
criminal for her to work, and be content only with the maternity benefit.
Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act140
(1) provides for the payment of maternity benefit. If Honourable Members
refer to the words as they stand in line 9 of160
that section, they will find that the words as they stand are ‘absent from
work’. Now, it has been suggested that these words, particularly ‘absent from
work’ or rather ‘from work’ are words which are ambiguous. I will briefly
explain to the House why it is suggested that the words ‘from work’
introduce a certain amount of ambiguity. Suppose the mine was closed by the
owner on a particular day, would the woman be entitled to maternity benefit? 240 It is suggested that she would not
be, because the implications of the words ‘absent from work’ mean that
there is work, but when a mine is closed, there is no work. Therefore, the
existence of the words ‘from work’280
has introduced this ambiguity. I have compared section 5 with the (2) five
different Maternity Benefit Acts which have been passed in the different
provinces and I find that the words ‘from work’ do not exist. Consequently, it
has become necessary to320
remove this ambiguity by removing these words.
The
amendment is sought to be carried out by two different amendments. One is to
delete the words which have caused this ambiguity from section 5 and make the
section read to360 the effect
that for every day during the four weeks preceding delivery the woman would be
entitled to maternity benefit. As I told the House, the four weeks
preceding delivery are periods of optional rest when she may choose to go and
earn her full wages or stay at home and be content with maternity benefit. With
regard to420 the days on which
she chooses to amend, we have added a proviso that she shall not be entitled to
any maternity benefit at all.
Sir,
the principle which underlies this Bill (3) has already been explained
by me at the last time when the Bill was before the House and it is therefore unnecessary
for me to traverse the same ground again. 480 I would briefly like to point out to the House the
changes of principle which the Select Committee has made in the original Bill.
The House must have noticed that although there are many changes which
the Select Committee has made, there are really four which are matters of
principle. In the first place, there has been an enlargement of the
category of workmen to which this Bill is made applicable. We have now included
workmen560 employed in
plantations. The second change relates to the rate of the first contribution
which is to be made to the insurance fund. The Bill, as it originally stood,
permitted the Government to levy a rate of 50 paise per Rs. 100 of the600 (4) wage bill of an employer. The
Select Committee has reduced the rate from 50 paise to 25 paise. The third
change made relates to the use of the unspent balances in the insurance fund. The
original proposal in the Bill640
was that the balance left in the fund should be merged in the general revenue
and should be used for the general purposes of Governmental expenditure. The
Select Committee has made a change and provided that the balance should be
returned to the employer who has made the contribution in proportion to the
contributions made by them. 700
The fourth change relates to contract labour. It is now provided that in cases where
the employer engages a contractor who in his turn720 engages workmen to carry out the work he
has taken on contract, the employer who employs the contractor will nonetheless
remain responsible for the payment of the compensation. These are the
principles which have been touched by the Select (5) Committee in the
changes which have been made. As the house will see, there are several
amendments on the agenda to the Bill. Some of the amendments are matters of
procedure and they have been put forth by the Government800 largely for the purpose of meeting such
criticism as was levelled against the Bill after it emerged from the Select
Committee, and I hope there will not be much contention on these amendments.
Sir,
I do not think anything has emerged840
from the speeches which have been delivered by Honourable Members who have
taken part in this debate which calls for any detailed reply. As I scrutinise
the points made, I find that there were certain points which could have been
relevant only at the time when the Bill was read for the first time. I remember
that they were raised and I also remember that I attempted to give what reply I
could at that stage. I do not (6) wish, therefore, to spend any more
time in discussing the thing over again. With regard to the point that has been
made with regard to certain specific clauses in the Bill as well as the
amendments that are on the960
agenda paper, I think it would be best in the interests of economy of time that
I should not980 devote any
part of my speech to them at this stage. It would be proper and relevant if the
matter was taken up at the time when the amendments were moved.
I
think my honourable friend will realise that if his amendment is adopted,
practically there would be a serious limitation imposed upon the number of
workmen who would be entitled to the benefit of this Bill. First of all, Sir,
as my honourable friend said, we must go rather cautiously in this matter
because his Act presupposes that there is a body of organised employers on
which this liability can1080 (7)
be imposed. It is a question of collecting premia, and you cannot collect
premia from people who are merely walking in the streets. You must have some
organisation on which you can fasten this liability and one has to go1120 very cautiously on the number of
workmen that could be included in this Bill. The second difficulty that I feel
is that the acceptance of the amendment of my honourable friend would not
enlarge the category of workmen which are included at present in this Bill.
Sir, I have very carefully examined the Workmen’s Compensation Act and I find
that there are altogether nine different categories of workmen to which that
Act applies. Comparing the categories of workmen to which1200 we propose to apply this Act with the
categories of workmen to which the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies, I find
that there is only one difference. The Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to
buildings and public works. That is the only (8) category of workmen to
which the present Bill does not apply. On others, both the Bills are on a
parity. 1260 Then the other
difference is this. If we apply the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as it stands,
obviously that will bring1280
with it the definition of workmen which is given in the Workmen’s Compensation
Act. My Honourable friend will remember that the definition of workmen in the
Workmen’s Compensation Act is a very circumscribed and limited definition. It
excludes from the category of workmen, those who are casual employees, and one
does not know what would be the number of casual employees that may be employed
in any particular industry to which this Bill applies. My honourable friend
will also recollect that the Workmen’s Compensation Act excludes the category
of people who are employed in clerical capacity. Our Bill does not exclude
either the casual employee or the people employed in (9) clerical
capacity. I think my honourable friend will agree that1400 although on an examination he will find
that some minor category of workmen has been omitted, the definition of workmen
is much larger than what it is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I hope
that my honourable friend will withdraw1440
his amendment.
Sir,
I will move this amendment No. 5 now. Not much explanation is necessary in
support of this amendment. As the House will recall, the clause as it stands
makes the Bill exclude the Government employees and railway servants from the
application of this Bill. When I moved the first reading of the Bill, I told
the House that although this Bill did not apply to this category of workmen, the
Government had made ample provision to pay compensation to their own servants.
Unfortunately, my speech evidently did (10) not carry conviction to some
Members of the House, and they still persisted that instead of taking
responsibility in an administrative manner, responsibility should be imposed by
statute. Sir, I have thought it fit to accept the suggestion made and therefore
I shall be at a later stage moving the amendment to clause 3. 1585
