Hon.
Chairman Sir, with regard to the question of coal in the new mineral policy,
as I said, it will have its place in our new legislation. As
my friend will understand, it is rather a difficult question. It
covers matters such as mining, grading, marketing and utilisation of inferior
coal. It will require a good deal of co-operation of the owners of mines and all
those who are in the trade in order that our legislation may be
fruitful. I may assure the House that we propose to take the
matter up as part of our post-war policy. I have said in a
general way what the policy of the Government of India is. I would say in
conclusion120 that an all-pervasive
and dynamic mineral policy would depend upon three circumstances. It would
depend upon the industrial drive140
in the country. If there is industrialization, this
country will undoubtedly have to undertake a more vigorous mineral policy than
it has done in the past. Whether our mineral policy will be successful and will
be used for the benefit of the many will also depend upon two other
considerations, namely, the constitutional position, the distribution of
authority between the States and the Centre and the role the State is allowed
to play in this matter. I believe I have said enough to enable
the House to appreciate what the Government of India proposes to do in regard
to a mineral240 policy for
this country.
In
the course of the observation which Mr. Joshi made
yesterday in support of his cut motion, he levelled certain charges against the
Labour Department. At the conclusion, he not only stated that the Labour
Department280 had failed
in dealing adequately with the duties which are cast upon it to conserve and
protect the interests of the workers but he also ended by saying that the
Labour Department did not have sympathy for the worker. Sir, the speech delivered
by my honourable friend was delivered by him in a telegraphic fashion,
omitting prepositions, participles, conjunctions and disjunctions
and certainly did not advance any detailed arguments in support of his
conclusions and I therefore feel at360
a certain disadvantage in dealing with his cut motion. However, I
propose to do my best to meet his charges. Sir, the first charge that he
levelled against the Labour Department was with respect to dearness allowance.
His first accusation was that the dearness allowance granted by the Government
of India was not adequate, and the second ground was that420 in the scheme of dearness allowance
sanctioned by the Government of India, there was no kind of uniformity.
With
regard to the first part, I think Mr. Joshi will agree that the notions of
adequacy must necessarily differ. It will be difficult to find two people who
could agree on the exact quantitative measurement of what adequate dearness
allowance would480 mean and
therefore I do not wish to enter upon that aspect of the case. However, I would
like to tell the House that the Government of India has always been taking
considerable interest in the matter of the dearness allowance and has
been watching the situation and it has taken steps in order to increase
dearness allowance from time to time. We have not only increased
dearness allowance but we have also increased the higher limits of the
workers560 who should be
entitled to get dearness allowance. On the first occasion, when dearness
allowance was given, the highest limit fixed was 100 to 120. On the third
occasion, it was raised to 150 and on the fourth occasion it600 was raised to 250. I may tell the
House that the Government of India is most actively considering the
question of further increase in dearness allowance and I hope and trust
that before long the decision of the Government of India in this matter
will be announced.
With
regard to the question of want of uniformity, I
will readily admit that there is no uniformity, that different classes
of employees of the Government of India are paid at different rates. But, Sir, I
would like to ask who is responsible for this want of uniformity. I
have no hesitation in700
saying that if anybody is responsible for the want of uniformity in dearness
allowance it is Mr. Joshi himself. 720
What has happened in the matter of the grant of dearness allowance is this. You
have got different sections in the labour world. You have got a body like the
Railwaymen’s Federation, a body like the Posts and Telegraph Union, like
the Textile Union and so on, and there are a lot of other people among the working
classes who have practically next to no organisation. I think Mr. Joshi
will agree that the policy followed by most of these labour
organisations is nothing else but a policy of organised loot in which the
first man is trying to take whatever he can from the Government of India,
leaving the rest of the people uncared for. Here is the Railwaymen’s Federation840 which meets the Railway Board, uses its
power-politics and compels the Railway Board to grant the highest
degree of dearness allowance. Then comes the Posts and Telegraph Union.
They wait upon my honourable friend in charge of that department. They threaten
him with strike. They tell him that they are the most essential part
of the service to the country and they eke out from him something
which they think is best for themselves. The rest of the people have nobody to
look after their cause and I have not seen any move on the part of what
are called the All-India Trade Union Congress or the All-India Labour
Federation to come together and work out a policy which could be960 applied uniformly to all the working
classes and to the men in the service of the Government. Then Mr. Joshi980
referred to lack of attention to unemployment caused by involuntary
circumstances. If I followed him correctly, he referred in somewhat contemptuous
terms to the circular issued by the Central Government to the States and to the
employers, telling them that it was the view of the Government of India
that whenever there was any involuntary unemployment due to shortage of coal or
shortage of raw material, the employers should pay certain compensation to
their employees. In our letter to the State Governments, we had informed
them that the Government of India was prepared for a certain scale of payment1080 to be made to the workers during
this period of unemployment. We had told them that they should pay 75 per
cent of the ordinary rate of pay for the first fortnight and for
the second fortnight, they should pay1120
50 per cent of the wages. We also told them that the period for which
this benefit was to be payable was one month and that the waiting
period should be seven months. Mr. Joshi ended by saying that the
Government of India had taken no further step in order to see that these
benefits were actually made payable.
Now,
Sir, I should like to point out that if Mr. Joshi had read the letter
that we circulated to the State1200
Governments and to employers, he would have seen that we had also
made some definite proposals with regard to meeting the cost of this
involuntary unemployment. In the circular letter sent out, we had stated that
the cost of these benefits paid to workmen for involuntary unemployment would
be admissible as a revenue expenditure for income-tax purposes. Obviously, then,
if1260 I may say so,
this was a special clause in the letter and we did not think
anything more was necessary. 1280
In addition to that, there is Rule 81-A of the Defence of India Rules, under
which it is perfectly open to workers who have been thrown out of
employment by reason of these circumstances to apply to the State
Governments for the purpose of submitting the issue to arbitration. I
am glad to say that the matter is now being pursued in that direction.
As Honourable Members are aware, there is a case of arbitration going on
between the employers in Ahmedabad and the workers there on this issue.
The third point which Mr. Joshi mentioned was connected with workmen’s compensation. I was not able to get at exactly the grievance of his charge as to what1400 was the deficiency in the position as it existed in this country and what exactly he wanted me to do. What I got from him was that he thought that compensation was not adequate. Now, the House will recall that our1440 definition of wages in the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a very wide one. It not only includes money wages, but it also includes everything that is capable of being estimated in terms of money. From this, it will be clear that wherever there is a case of compensation to a workman, he is not only entitled to get compensation on the basis of his money wages, but he is also entitled to get compensation on his money wages and dearness allowance. Mr. Joshi mentioned the fact that while in Great Britain the law has been altered, we have done nothing of the kind in this country. He said that during the war the benefits payable to workmen under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in England have been enhanced. I have looked up the matter and the position and I am sorry to say that Mr. Joshi has not really understood what the difference is. As Honourable Members of the House will1600 be aware, in the English law payments are periodical, while in India our payments are mostly lump sum payments. 1620
Pitman Shorthand Instructor and
Key + New Course Key (Set of 2 Books)
