Sir,
as far as the provision of pay during holidays in this Bill is
concerned, there are several points to which I should like to draw
the attention of the House. The first is that although the total
period of the holiday is seven, only six are declared to be paid holidays.
The seventh is really a day of weekly rest provided under section 35. With
regard to the seventh day, the Bill does not make it obligatory upon
the employer to pay for it. But at the same time, the Bill does not
take away the right of the employee to demand payment, if as a result
of his contract of service, that holiday was due to him as120 a paid holiday. It is really left
to be governed by the contract of service.
The
third point is140 with regard
to the payment to be made for these six holidays. The rule that
we have adopted in the Bill160
is an equitable rule. The rule is that a worker is to be paid at
a rate equivalent to the average of his earnings during the three preceding
months barring overtime. I believe that is an equitable principle. The Bill
also provides that in order to enable a workman to take his holiday, some
facilities should be given to him so that he may have some cash with
him on the day on which he proposes to start on his holiday. 240 Consequently, provision is made in the
Bill that half the dues, which are to be paid to the workman going on holiday,
shall be paid to him at the start. There is one other issue which
is relevant280 to this.
The Bill proposes to exempt certain factories from its operation if it is
found that a factory has a system of holidays with pay which is substantially
similar to the one provided in the Bill and about whose320 satisfactory character the Provincial
Government is able to certify. The object underlying this clause is that if
there is a voluntary arrangement between the employer and the worker
whereby the worker is given the same privileges which we are providing
in360 the law, then it is
unnecessary to interfere with so amicable an arrangement. Sir, these
are the main provisions of the Bill.
There
are two other matters to which I should like to make a reference before
I sit down. The first is the question of discharge of a workman by the employer
to prevent him from earning his holiday. 420
The second question is the employer inducing a workman not to take his
holiday although he has earned it. These are questions which I frankly admit
are not being provided for in the Bill. It is not that the Government is
not aware that such questions may arise, but the view of the Government
is that at the present stage, 480
at any rate, there is no reason to suppose that such contingencies
will arise. If experience shows that such cases do become usual, it
would be time to amend the Act to stop their recurrence. For the
moment, the view I hold is that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient for
the purposes which it has in view, namely, to grant holidays with pay to
factory workers.
My
task has been considerably lightened by the fact that560 there has been general support
given to the motion which I have made in regard to this Bill and
therefore in the course of the reply which I propose to make to the
debate, I shall be very brief. I had better600 say something straightaway with
regard to the speech of my honourable friend Dr. Ahmad. What I
propose to say is that I really do not propose to say anything about what he
has said and I hope we would not take640 it as an act of discourtesy to
him, because what he has said has really very little to do with the Bill which
is under discussion. He has propounded a novel theory of solving the
labour problem, namely, partnership. I am sure that we are
greatly benefited by the elucidation which he has given of this new
ideology. 700 I can assure
him that when the problem of our constitutional structure comes before us
for discussion, his elucidation would be720
a matter of great use and benefit not only to myself but to all those who
will be engaged on that problem.
I
do not think that there has been any change in
the position of the Government of India. I have read the debate with some
care and attention and I am quite satisfied that the reason which led
the Government of the day to oppose the Convention was because of the
understanding that if a convention800
has to be recognised, it must be recognised as a whole. It
could not be recognised in part and the Government of India felt that it
was impossible, having regard to the circumstances of this
country, to accept the convention as a whole. 840 Although they were prepared to accept
the principle and also prepared to investigate the possibilities of applying it
in some limited manner, they could take no other course than the one which was
open to them under the circumstances which then prevailed. Now, my
friend Mr. Joshi has made some points in the course of his speech. I
must admit that two of his points are points of substance. The first point that
he made was that although we were limiting the scope of the Bill, we
have limited it to a factory and we have not agreed to extend the
principle at least to an industry. As I said, I admit that this is
a point of substance960 but I
must at the same time point out that applying it to an industry means that
it would be980
necessary for us to devise some method by which we could pool the resources
of those concerns which come under one particular industry. Now, although I
have the fullest sympathy with the point which he has made, it is
not possible for us at the present moment to work out a pool system by
which all factories within a particular industry could be made to share
the cost of broken holidays earned by different employees in different
factories arising out of broken periods of service in different
factories. This is the reason why it has not been possible to
make the1080 rule
applicable to industry as a whole.
The
second point which Mr. Joshi made was the complaint that the holiday period
provided in the Act is too short. I admit that seven days is too short a
holiday but1120 there again I
am confronted with another difficulty, which, I am sure, my honourable
friend will understand. The difficulty arises on account of the desultory
character of our labourers. Labourers take long holidays for a variety of
reasons and consequently the absenteeism which is prevalent on
account of this habit does really complicate the matter very much. If our
labour was induced or was trained to give continuous service in a
factory for a large number of days than they have been1200 doing now, I should be quite
prepared to admit that the case for extension of the holiday beyond the period that
we have fixed would undoubtedly be very strong. But I hope that the
fact that we have given seven-day holiday would have its indirect effect
on the labouring and working classes of this country who will realise
that1260 if they did render
more continuous service than they have been doing, they would be making
strong the case for1280 the
extension of the holiday beyond the period of seven days. As the situation
stands, I think it would not be justifiable to go beyond the prescribed
period of seven days which is also the period which was
recommended by the Convention.
Sir,
another point that was made with regard to the same question was with
relation to the application of the Act to non-perennial factories. To
that point also, my reply is the same, namely, that the provision for a
seven-day paid holiday is made to those workmen who are not getting a
sufficiently long rest. Now, a non-perennial factory is a factory where people
do get long period of rest. It may be that it is a1400 case of involuntary employment, but I
am not looking at it from the point of view of employment or unemployment.
So far as the Bill is concerned, we are looking at it from the point of
view of rest and so1440 far as
the non-perennial factories are concerned, the workmen certainly get a
sufficiently long period of rest so that it cannot be said that in
their case there is as much necessity for a paid holiday of seven days as
it is in the case of the perennial factories.
The
other point that was raised by my honourable friend was that we have
made no specific provision against an employer entering into an
unfair practice whereby he would discharge an employee in order to prevent him
from earning his holiday. To that point, I had referred in my opening speech
when I made the motion, and I said that while the Government is aware that
certain practices may develop, the Government does not think that they ought to
take any action straightaway. The Government would prefer to wait and watch and
see which side resorts to what sort of plan in order to over-reach the other
side. 1598
