Vol. 10 · pages 106–110

18 * The War Injuries (Compensation Insurance) Bill The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Labour Member): Sir, I move : “ That the Bill to impose on employers a liability to pay compensation to workmen sustaining war injuries and to provide for the insurance of employers against such liability, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” The principles which underlie this Bill have already been explained by me at the last time when the Bill was before the House and it is unnecessary for me therefore to traverse the same ground over again. I would briefly like to point out to the House the changes of principle which the Select Committee have made in the original Bill. The House must have noticed that although there are very 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 workmen employed in plantations. The second change made relates to the rate of the first contribution which is to be made to the insurance fund. The Bill as it originally stood permitted Government to levy a rate of annas eight per Rs. 100 of the wage bill of an employer; the Select Committee has reduced the rate from eight annas to four annas. The third change made relates to the use of the unspent balances in the insurance fund. The original proposal in the Bill 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 blance should be returned to the employer who have made the contribution in proportion to the contributions made by them. The fourth change relates to contract labour. It is now provided that in cases * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 13th August 1943, p. 701.

90 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES where the employer engages a contractor who in his turn 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 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 Government 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 it is necessary for me to say anything further on this Bill. I move. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Motion moved. “ That the Bill to impose on employers a liability to pay compensation to workmen sustaining war injuries and to provide for the insurance of employers against such liability, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” * * * *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I do not think anything has emerged 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 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 the agenda paper, I think it would be best in the interests of economy of time that I should not devote any part of my speech to them at this stage. It would be germane, proper and relevant if the matter was taken up at the time when the amendments were moved. * * * * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. Ill, 13th August 1943, p. 708.

91 THE WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION INSURANCE) BILL *Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : Amendment moved: “ That for clause 6 of the Bill the following be substituted :— ‘ 6 This Act shall apply to all those workmen to whom the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, applies ’ ”. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am afraid I have to oppose this amendment. I think my Honourable friend Mr. Joshi will realise that my opposition is not based upon any want of sympathy for workmen. Mr. N. M. Joshi: I did not say that. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I think my Honourable friend Mr. Joshi 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 Mr. Joshi 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 can 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 therefore to go very cautiously in including the number of workmen that could be included in this Bill. The second difficulty that I feel is this, that really speaking the acceptance of the amendment of Mr. Joshi 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 which 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 category of workmen to which the present Bill does not apply. On others, both the Bills—the Workmen’s Compensation Act as well as this Bill—are on a parity. Then the other difference is this. If we apply the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as it stands, obviously that will bring in with it the definition of workmen which is given in the Workmen’s Compensation * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 13th August 1943, p. 710.

92 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Act. My Honourable friend Mr. Joshi 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, workmen 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 Mr. Joshi 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 clerical capacity. I think Mr. Joshi will agree that 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, on this assurance, withdraw his amendment. * * * * Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : The question is : “ That for clause 6 of the Bill the following be substituted :— ‘ 6. This Act shall apply to all those workmen to whom the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, applies’ ”. The motion was negatived. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : My next amendment No. 5 is dependent upon clause 3 which the House now agreed that it should stand over. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : Is this in sub-stitution of the other amendment? Do I understand that if this amendment is carried, then in that case, amendment No. 3 to clause 3 will be unnecessary ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, Sir. It is necessary. Both are necessary. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): In that case, I do not see why you cannot move this amendment now. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I will move this amendment No. 5 now. Sir I move : “ That sub-clause (2) of clause 6 of the Bill be omitted.” * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 13lh August 1943, p. 711.

93 THE WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION INSURANCE) BILL Not much explanation is necessary in support of this amendment. As the House will recall, the clause as it stands makes the Bill exclude 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, Government had made ample provision to pay compensation to their own servants. Unfortunately my speech evidently did 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 which stands in my name to clause 3. Sir, I move. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Amendment moved: “ That sub-clause (2) of clause 6 of the Bill be omitted.” * * * * Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : The question is: “ That clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill.” The motion was adopted. Clause 6, as amended, was added to the Bill. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I move : “ That to part (g) of sub-clause (5) of clause 7 of the Bill the following further proviso be added : ‘ Provided further that the rate of any periodic payment after the first shall not be higher than the rate estimated to raise the amount in the Fund after repayment of the advances, if any, paid into the Fund by the Central Government under sub-section ( 2) of section 11, to a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs ’ .” This Proviso is again intended to meet the fears of some of the Members representing the class of employers. It was feared by them that we might use the provisions of this clause as it stood originally to raise any amount of fund and to build it up when it was practically not necessary for the purpose for which that was intended. I had originally given an assurance on the floor of the House that it was not the intention of Government to use powers which they have got under this Bill to raise unnecessary fund to build it up and thereby inflict * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 13th August 1943, p. 712.