Vol. 10 · pages 111–115

94 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES a sort of injury upon the employers. There again, Sir, my statement did not satisfy them, and I have thought it best to give them the satisfaction by introducing this clause. As will be seen, a limit has been placed of rupees fifteen lakhs upon the balance on the fund, and I think this amendment will be accepted by them in the spirit in which it is intended, namely, to appease those who feel jealous about the Government’s power of taxation. Sir, I move. * * * * Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Amendment moved: “ That in sub-clause (2) of clause 9 of the Bill after the word ‘fails’ occurring in the second line the words ‘after due notice’ be inserted.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I appreciate the force of the necessity of giving some notice, but I would like to inform the Honourable Member that there is a provision for notice, although that provision does not appear in the Bill itself. He will realize that the important words in the body of clause 9 are ‘in accordance with the scheme’. If my Honourable friend were to turn to clause 9—I am sorry that is the reason why he has moved this amendment—and see the terms of the scheme itself, I assure him that he will find there is a clause—which at present is clause 1 ( viii) (a) of the draft scheme—which provides for 15 days notice. I think my Honourable friend on this information will withdraw his amendment. * * * †Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Amendment moved : “ That in sub-clause (2) of clause 9 of the Bill after the word ‘ punishable ’ occurring in the fourth line the words ‘ after thirty days of grace from the due date of payment’ be inserted.” The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I rise to oppose the amendment. I do not see any necessity for conceding the point which my Honourable friend is trying to make. As I pointed out to the House, we have already made a provision for notice, which is a period of 15 * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. Ill, 13th August 1943, p. 713. † Ibid. p. 713.

95 THE WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION INSURANCE) BILL days, and I do not understand why my learned friend should contend for an additional privilege which will extend a further period for a recal citrant employer. If we had not provided for notice in our scheme, I could have well understood the justice of a claim for a period of grace. But if my learned friend will allow me to say so I really see no distinction or it is rather a distinction, without difference, between period of notice and period of grace. Mr. Hooseinbhoy A. Lalljee : Sir, I think the request which my Honourable friend, Mr. Abdur Rasheed Choudhury, made was a very fair one………. After all is said and done, in business life one has got to make arrangements and when we are bringing in so many people, I do feel that it will not matter very much if 15 days notice and 15 days grace period is allowed. I like the word ‘grace’ rather than the word ‘notice’ in all 30 days for the simple reason that grace 15 days is a thing which is absolutely a thing which the Government can give in their grace. Therefore I think in all fairness he will not be led by friends who believe that we in India are more dishonest than others in the world at large. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am prepared to allow them fifteen days grace in the scheme, Sir. * * * * Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): The question is : “ That to sub-clause (1) of clause 11 of the Bill the following proviso be added : ‘Provided that no payment from the Fund shall be made in discharge of any liability of the Crown to pay compensation to workmen employed by it ’.” The motion was adopted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambcdkar : Sir, I move : “ That for sub-clause (3) of clause 11 of the Bill, the following be substituted : ‘(3) If when all payments which have to be made out of the Fund have been defrayed, any balance remains in the Fund, the balance shall be constituted into a Fund to be utilised and administered by the Central Government for the benefit of workmen ’.” As I pointed out, the original position when the Bill was introduced was that the balance was to be utilised for general purposes of Government and was to merge in the general revenues of the * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. Ill, 13th August 1943, pp. 714-15.

96 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Government. The Select Committee altered that clause and provided that the balance, if any, should go to the employers who have contributed to this fund, in proportion to their contribution. The amendment which I am moving is an amendment which is, if I may say so, a midway house between the two positions. It suggests that the fund shall not be utilised by the Government for its general purposes, nor shall it be returned to the employer, but it shall be treated as a sort of trust fund to be utilised and administered by the Central Government for the benefit of workmen. I thought that this was a very reasonable compromise and that the whole House would accept it without demur. But I find that there are still some in the House who are not satisfied with the position outlined in this amendment. The grounds on which I justify the amendment standing in my name are, in the first instance, these. I think it will not be denied that whatever contributions the employers may make to the insurance fund, it will be treated by the Finance Department as revenue which will be revenue for which credit will be given by the Finance Department. It is really revenue which would in the ordinary circumstances go to the Government of India in the form of income-tax and excess profits tax. Therefore I have no hesitation in submitting that a very large bulk of this fund is really intended that they would get and utilise what is theirs, I do not think there was anything very serious to challenge that position. But as I stated, I have receded from that position, and I am prepared to allow this fund to be treated, not as general revenues, but as a credit fund to be utilised for the benefit of workmen. The argument which I have heard in the lobby and which seems to have prevailed upon some Honourable Members who are not satisfied with the position-taken here, appears to me to be this. They seem to think that this is the thin end of the wedge, that the Government is really establishing a precedent for making a levy on the industry for the benefit of labour. I do want to disabuse the minds of Members who entertain that sort of fear. I have assured them before this, that Government has no intention of making unfair use of this clause by taxing an industry with the object of raising a fund for purposes for which it is not mainly required ; and I would also like to assure Honourable Members who entertain that kind of fear that it is unnecessary for Government to seek or to make any clandestine attempt to establish a precedent. Government has ample

97 THE WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION INSURANCE) BILL power and there are precedents which have been laid down already by laws, both here and in England, whereby it is possible for the State to impose a special cess for the benefit of labour. We have got in this country the coal cess and the coke cess, which is a levy on industry and which is utilised for the purposes of the industry or those who are being served by that industry. In England we have a case in the Coal Mines Act whereby a specific levy is made on the industry ; the fund collected by the levy is kept aside for the purposes of labour welfare. Therefore I do want to assure Honourable Members that there is no intention to attempt in a clandestine manner to establish a precedent. Our intention is to support labour and I do not understand why many employers who have always exhibited such kind interest in supporting schemes for the welfare of workmen serving them should in any way hesitate to accept the amendment which I am moving. Sir, I move. * * * * The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, the point made by my Honourable friend, Mr. Chapman-Mortimer seems to be this. He says that we are changing our purpose. Originally the fund was intended to be used for the purpose of paying compensation. We now propose to use the balance of it for welfare. No doubt this is a change of purpose but I still maintain that there is nothing improper in that. If I understood him correctly, the position of Mr. Mortimer seems to be this. He seems to be following what I must concede is a well established principle in the budgetary arrangement, namely, that when money has been sanctioned by the legislature for a particular purpose it ought not to be spent for another service not included within that purpose. I entirely agree but that is a matter which relates to executive action. I do not propose to use the fund by executive action but it is because I do not wish to be guilty of any impropriety that I have come to the house for asking it to be guilty of any impropriety that I have come to the House for asking its sanction for allowing the balance to be used for some other purpose which the House entirely agrees to be a beneficial purpose. I, therefore, submit that there is no impropriety in changing the purpose inasmuch as we are asking for the legislative sanction of this House for the change of purpose. * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 13th August 1943, p. 718.

98 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Then, the point has been raised that the word ‘welfare’ is an omnibus word, I agree that it is an omnibus word and I do not know if I am in a position to specify items which will be included in the term “welfare” on which there can be expected to be unanimity in this House. I shall, therefore, not venture to particularise what would come under the term “welfare”. But I would say this to those Honourable Members who do not know what is meant by “welfare” as well as to those Honourable Members who think that Government ought not to be entrusted with a responsibility for administering this Fund that they will realise that the matter, with all this, is still left in the hands of the House. The House will have many more opportunities on various occasions to raise this question as to how this money is to be utilised and I am sure many Honourable Members who know what is “welfare” or who have ideas on it will use that opportunity to inform Government as to how that money would be utilised. Sir, I think the house will be well advised in accepting my amendment. * * * * Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): The question is: “ That to sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Bill, the following proviso be added : * Provided that where an employer has taken out a policy of insurance as required by sub-section (1) of section 9 and has made all payments by way of premium thereon which are subsequently due from him in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme, or whereby the provisions of the sub-section (2) of section 12 the employer is not required to insure, the Central Government shall assume and discharge on bahalf of the employer the employer’s liability to pay compensation under this sub-section ’.” The motion was adopted. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir I move : “ That to clause 3 of the Bill the following new sub-clause be added : ‘ (3) This section shall be binding on the Crown ’.” I have already explained that we are now seeking to make the Crown statutorily liable for the provisions of this Bill. With these remarks, I move. * * * †Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Amendment moved: “ That in sub-clause (1) of clause 13 of the Bill, part (b) be omitted.” * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. Ill, 13th August 1943, p. 719. † Ibid., p. 721.