Hon.
Vice-Chairman, Sir, I rise to oppose the Bill which has been moved in this
House. Madam, this raises a very fundamental issue of collective bargaining. As
a matter of fact, this Bill tries to negate what has been achieved in this
country in the labour field. It has been the claim of the party in power that
their industrial relations policy is based on the principle of collective
bargaining. What we find in practice is the outright rejection of this
particular policy. This Bill strikes at the root of the collective bargaining
right of the working classes. I believe that this right has been given through
the Constitution but the way in which this right is sought to120
be circumvented and rejected, it also means that the right to organise is being
negated which is also guaranteed in140 (1)
the Constitution. What is the use of an organisation if that organisation
is not allowed to function independently to safeguard the rights of the
workers, to protect the rights of workers, as also to advance the rights and to
see that the standard of living is improved from time to time? If the purpose
for which a trade union is formed is sought to be finished, what is the use of
saying that the Government is going to allow collective bargaining? The Hon'ble
Minister is in-charge of the Finance Ministry, under which a large number of public
sector undertakings function.240 May I ask him whether this right is denied
in any of the public sector undertakings?
Hon.
Speaker Sir, I am unable to understand why this General Insurance Amendment
Bill has been brought for this particular purpose? Whether it is280
general insurance or life insurance, the
Government had already passed (2) a
legislation. Now, again they are trying to revalidate it to circumvent the
bargaining rights of the working classes. The Supreme Court has already decreed
not to have such a piece of legislation. In spite of that, the Government is
coming forward with such a piece of legislation which is beyond explanation. It
is an anti-labour legislation.
Sir, this
is a sort of discriminatory policy. You deal with one public sector360
undertaking by one measuring rod and by another measuring rod, you are trying
to deny something to the other public sector undertaking. Unless a collective
bargaining right is given, no trade union movement can prosper. Unless there is
a healthy trade union movement in this country, how can the society progress
and how can the exploited sections of the people420 be properly
protected? Another thing which is happening and which I would like to point out
is that lack of planning is resulting in such things. Very often the railways
take (3) up a project, start the
work, continue it for two or three years and then for some reason or the other,
stop working on it and take up a480 new project of a similar nature. This is
something which is very much distressing.
Sir, I
seek only two or three minutes. I would like to take this opportunity to
enquire about two or three things from the Hon'ble Minister. First of all, what
is the status of the casual workers working in the Indian railways. According
to the latest information, there are about 2.5 lakhs of casual workers working in
the railways for the last 10 or 15 years.560 We have been pointing this out to the
Government repeatedly. The Government should come out with a complete solution
of the problem. What is all the more distressing to note is that the predecessors
of the present Railway Minister had600 a fleet of casual workers to the tune of
2,000 (4) in West Bengal alone. Now,
without solving the problem of the existing casual workers, if you go on increasing
the fleet of casual workers, that will aggravate the problem. Then, another
clarification that I would like to seek from the Hon’ble Railway Minister is
about the loco running staff. In spite of repeated assurances from the
Government, the 10-hour working day had not yet been ensured so far as the loco
running staff are concerned. I would also like to draw the attention of the
Hon'ble Minister to the700 fact that a good number of loco running
staff are still being victimised. I would urge upon the Government to720
give a serious thought to these things and evolve a just and realistic solution
to the problem so that the fate of the loco running staff is determined in the
right path. Madam, I would take just one minute more. The number of accidents
is still alarming. In reply to (5) a
question, the Hon'ble Minister of State stated that there had been 38 collisions,
62 derailments, and 61 level crossing accidents in the Indian Railway last
year.
Sir, the
huge mandate that we got from the people is one of the biggest historic transitions
in this country. It was the saddest moment that our country was facing. The
people have taken a decision that they must have840 # a united and strong India, they must make India a prosperous
country, they must ensure that the people living below the poverty line get more
and more benefits and that their living standards go up. The poverty itself has
not been defined yet in many countries. Once I had the privilege of attending
one seminar where the economists of the third-world countries discussed and
defined what is poverty. The more the poverty was defined, they found that it
was very difficult to define poverty because there are people in these countries
(6) who think that such kind of living
standards are considered to be more affluent in those countries. But in our
country, as minimum living standards, we think that we960 should have food, we should
have a home, and our children should get education. In that way, we are trying
to980
define it. Let us find out and evolve a kind of scientific formula and method
by which we can proceed to eradicate poverty.
Hon.
Chairman Sir, I am quite sure that whatever amount of industrialisation we are
having, we cannot eradicate poverty within years. Supposing we make it years,
let us plan it in such a manner that gradually we achieve that target. We are
investing so much of money in all these programmes. We have to see that the
benefits of all these programmes percolate to the masses and that these are
implemented properly.
The other
day, I was1080
reading an article on poverty, planning and bureaucracy. It was a (7) very interesting article. I found
that some people have made some research and they have gone into this field. I
can tell you what happens there. I have gone1120 and met many of the beneficiaries
personally. The subsidy that we are giving, is taken away, is shared by the
officers involved in this process. I am not voicing any kind of view which
would not be tolerated when I say that the subsidy part in these various
programmes is being shared by officers involved in the implementation of the
programmes. What happens is that the subsidy part is not available to the
beneficiaries. The subsidy itself1200 is taken away by the officers involved
in the process and only the loan part is received by the beneficiaries and they
pay interest on that.
The
development programme in the rural areas aims at
fighting poverty and that is the aim of MREP. I would like to say that I (8) do not share this view.1260
What is MREP programme? I have seen what they do in the village. They bring a
thousand people to the village and tell them to construct a road and they give
them food for three months. After three months, whether the condition of the
road is good or bad is not important. Mostly, it is in bad condition. When the
rain comes, it is washed away and it is absolutely devastated and the people
remain unemployed. We want regular schemes and programmes, by which people can
get their bread. That is the most important programme and the Planning
Commission out of its wisdom thought that we have bumper production, we will have
bumper crops and a good buffer stock, and we will distribute grains to poor
people. We do like to treat our people as beggars. We1400 (9) do not like to treat them as contract workers.
Hon.
Chairman Sir, the hon. Member has cited the example of China. If our Prime
Minister adopts and tries to implement the method that China adopted, then, I
think, the Opposition will walk out of the House every day. The Congress
members will also react and reject it. Sir, I did not like to bring Soviet
Union and China into the picture. I would like to forget the Siberian camp
history and also the history of China. I have travelled recently in China. I
have seen that they are turning over their national units into private hands. If
you want to stop the growth of science and technology under the pretext that
Mahatma Gandhi said this and Lincoln said that, we are no more modern and we
will no more be civilized. (10)
