ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-212

 

This Bill is a very simple piece of legislation and it is also a non-controversial piece of legislation. The Bill proposes to make four amendments and there are five different sections which are sought to be amended by this Bill. Section 9 is a section which legislates that the occupier of a factory, before starting the factory, should send to the Inspector of Factories a notice giving certain particulars. Now, it has been found out that under this section the Inspector of Factories is not entitled to ask for the particulars from the occupier of the factory which he thinks he ought to have, nor the occupier is bound to give any such particulars. Recently, it has been found out¹²⁰ that the occupier of a factory, who wants to start a factory, has refused to give certain important information which¹⁴⁰ (1) the Inspector of Factories requires.

In order to remove this difficulty, section 9 is amended and the amendment gives powers¹⁶⁰ to the Government to ask for certain particulars which the Inspector of Factories requires for his purposes. Section 19 deals with the supply of water and washing places in the factory. As the section stands now, the provision for a washing place is confined to factories involving contact by workers with injurious and obnoxious substances. The section does not require owners of factories of other kind to provide washing places. It has been suggested that this limitation ought to be²⁴⁰ removed because washing places are necessary for all sorts of workers and not merely for those whose work brings them in contact with injurious and obnoxious substances. The amendment, therefore, makes provision for making washing places obligatory on all factories. ²⁸⁰

Section 23 deals with fire-escapes to be installed in (2) a factory. Here, again, it has been found that the section is defective. The section leaves the requirement to the occupier of factory. It does not give the Government the³²⁰ power to prescribe the number of fire-escapes that a particular factory may find it necessary to have. Consequently, section 23 has been amended by the present Bill in order to give power to the Government to prescribe the requisite number of³⁶⁰ fire-escapes which the Inspector of Factories may find it necessary in the circumstances of a particular factory.

Sections 45 and 54 deal with two matters. They deal with hours of work which a child and a woman is required to work in a factory. They also deal with what are called the limits of the spreadover. The present amendment does⁴²⁰ not in any way alter the provisions with regard to the number of hours which a child or a woman is required to work in a factory, nor does (3) it in any way affect the 13-hour spread which has been prescribed by these provisions. All that the present amendment does is to alter the limit of the spreadover by changing⁴⁸⁰ 7-30 p.m. to 8-30 p.m. This change has become necessary on account of two reasons. Firstly, it is due to the change in the standard lime and, secondly, it is due to the necessity for saving light.

Sir, the provisions of this Bill fall into two parts and I think it will be desirable from the point of view of simplicity in the matter of presentation if I explained to the House the provisions of the Bill in two⁵⁶⁰ separate forms. Part one of the Bill deals with compensatory holidays for the loss of compulsory holidays. Members will realise that in section 35 of the Factories Act, it is obligatory upon the owner or manager of the factory to give⁶⁰⁰ one compulsory holiday to every adult worker in the factory. (4) This provision which is contained in section 35 is subject to the provisions contained in sections 43 and 44. These two sections provide that the Inspector of Factories may permit⁶⁴⁰ exemptions being granted to the manager of the factory or factory owner from the obligations imposed by section 35.

The view that is taken is that when such exemptions should be granted, they ought to be compensated by other holidays, equivalent in number. Health and efficiency of the worker requires that he should have the requisite number of holidays which⁷⁰⁰ are prescribed by law. The Act, as it stands, makes no such provisions for compensatory holidays. Consequently, clause 2 of the⁷²⁰ Bill has been introduced for the purpose of removing this lacuna. It will now be open for the Provincial Governments to make rules subject to certain adjustments that wherever exemptions have been granted under section 35, compensatory holidays of the equivalent amount shall be granted to the workmen. (5) This is the first part of the provisions of the Bill.

Coming to the second part of the Bill, the provisions contained therein deal with the question of holidays with pay. ⁸⁰⁰ It might be desirable at the outset to state to the House the origin of this part of the Bill. Many members of the House will recall that in 1936 the International Labour Conference passed a convention relating to the holidays⁸⁴⁰ with pay. The Government of India, which was represented at that International Labour Conference, was not prepared to accept the convention and to ratify it. A Government Resolution was moved in the Assembly in 1937, proposing the non-acceptance of the convention. The Resolution was carried. But while the Government did not find itself in a position to ratify the convention, the Member in charge of the Resolution said that the Government would explore and examine the possibilities of giving effect to the convention. The Member in charge of the (6) Resolution undertook to have consultation with the Provincial Governments and all the Associations representing the employers and employees to find out to what extent there was a general agreement in the matter⁹⁶⁰ of this convention. Part two of the provisions which relates to holidays with pay is the result of this⁹⁸⁰ examination and exchange of views which have been going on over a considerable number of years. Turning to the Bill itself, it will be seen that the Bill applies to factories and it applies not to all the factories, but to perennial factories only. The Bill undoubtedly is limited in its scope as compared to the provisions contained in the convention which was adopted in 1936. With regard to the other provisions, I think it will be better if I divide my observations in four parts so as to cover separately the four points which the legislation concerning holidays with¹⁰⁸⁰ pay must deal with. These four points are: Length (7) of holiday, qualifying conditions for a right to a holiday, limiting conditions, and pay during holiday. With regard to the first point, namely, length of a holiday, this is a matter¹¹²⁰ which is dealt with in the new section 49-B which the Bill proposes to add to the Factories Act. According to this section, the total holiday is to be on seven consecutive days for a worker who has put in a continuous service for one year. It might be asked as to why we have taken seven days and not more. The reply to that is that in fixing this period of seven days, we have followed the provisions contained¹²⁰⁰ in the Geneva convention of 1936 which laid down six days as the limit of the holiday. To that, we have added a seventh day which is a compulsory weekly rest granted to a worker under section 35 of the Factories Act. With regard to the question of qualifying (8) conditions laying down as to when a worker will be entitled¹²⁶⁰ to claim a seven-day holiday, the provisions contained in the Bill are like this. As a matter of fact,¹²⁸⁰ there is really only one condition and that is that the worker must have put in a period of twelve months’ continuous service. There is no other condition. With regard to the question as to what is continuous service of twelve months, the Bill provides for what are called interruptions, and declares that certain interruptions shall not invalidate the claim for holidays with pay. The interruptions which are mentioned in the Bill are interruptions arising out of sickness, accident, authorised leave, lock-out period and a strike period provided the strike is legal.

There is also another provision in the Bill which relates to the same subject and that is the question of involuntary unemployment caused by the desire of the factory¹⁴⁰⁰ (9) owner to close the factory. We have limited that to a period of 30 days. If the involuntary unemployment caused by the factory manager does not extend beyond 30 days, then that would not invalidate the claim of the¹⁴⁴⁰ worker for his right to holidays with pay. It might be necessary perhaps to mention why we have prescribed only 30 days. The explanation is this. Holidays with pay must take into account the ability of the manager or the factory owner to pay. The view that is taken in the Bill is that if the manager or the factory owner is obliged to close his factory for more than 30 days, then I think it is legitimate to presume that he has really not been prospering as well as he ought to, and that he is, therefore, not (10) in a position to pay the cost for holidays with pay. But if the involuntary period does not exceed 30 days, then the presumption is that he is still able to bear the cost and should bear it. The Bill also provides for limited condition with regard to holidays with pay and that limited condition relates to the question of¹⁶⁰⁰ accumulation of holidays.