Vol. 10 · pages 346–350

329 FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL both in seasonal and non-seasonal factories comes to 25,20,251. These are the latest figures for 1945. Those that were employed in factories working at 48 to 54 comes to 9,47,000 which is 37 per cent, of the total. It will therefore be seen that there are already a great number of factories both perennial and seasonal which have practically adopted the maximum which is now fixed in the Bill and from that point of view it cannot be said that the Bill is making any very great radical change in the situation as it exists today. There is one other point which has been raised by the critics of the Bill to which I would like to give a reply. It has been said that this Bill will affect production, and that it will reduce production and this point has been emphasized, if I may say so, by the cotton textile mills. They have contended that from their point of view and from the point of view of the country this is an inopportune measure. There is a great deal of shortage of cloth in the country. In fact there is a cloth famine and they say that if anything was necessary in the circumstances of the day, the mills, particularly the Cotton mills, ought to have greater latitude in the matter of hours of employment, so that the deficiency in the matter of cloth production might be made up. Now, I had an examination made of the effect of the reduction in the hours of labour on production, particularly with regard to the cotton mills by the Labour Department and I have here some very interesting figures. I have a great lot of figures but I do not want to weary the House with them but I will just refer to the consumption of cotton, increase of loom, spindles and so on, so that the house may get an idea. Now, I take the figure for the year 1934, the year in which the change in the hours of work was made last time. They were brought down from 60 to 54. Now, in 1934, the position was as follows. There were 352 mills. There were 9,613,174 spindles, 194,388 looms, 384,938 hands employed and the number of cotton bales consumed was 2,703,994. Take the next year, 1935, when the provisions of the Act became effective. The number of mills had increased to 365. Spindles had increased to 9,685,175, looms had increased to 1,98,867. The number of hands increased to 4,14,884. The bales consumed increased to 3,123,418. I will take the last year available to me, that is 1938. The total number of mills had increased to 380. The number of spindles had increased to 1,020,275.

330 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Shri Sri Prakasa : Will the Honourable Member give them in lakhs ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : They are all given here in millions. The notation which I am using is quite famliar to the Honourable Member on the other side. He is not so ignorant as he is showing himself to be. The number of looms is 200,286; hands employed were 437,690, the number of cotton bales consumed 3,662,648. Therefore, my submission is that so far as experience of the past is any guide to the consequences of the future, I am sure that any such fear that may be entertained is unfounded. However, the Government of India does recognise that there is cloth famine, if not famine, there is shortage of cloth and that under the circumstances, it would be necessary to make some provision, so that should occasion arise, the mills or the other establishments which require longer hours to work may have the liberty to do so. Accordingly, there has been inserted in the Bill a clause which is clause 5 and which amends section 44. It will be seen from the wording of the clause that power is given to the Provincial Government to extend the operation of the order for six months at a time, it was proved that public interest as distinguished from emergency existed. There is already provision for suspending the provisions of the Factory Act whenever there is emergency. It was felt that the shortage of cloth may not be regarded as an emergency and consequently Provincial Governments may not be in a position to use the sections which exist at present in the Act. Consequently as a measure of greater precaution, the Government has inserted in the Bill a clause which now makes provision for another category of situation which is called public interest. So, I hope that that clause will allay such fears as the cotton textile millowners may have with regard to the effect of the Bill on the production of cloth. Sir, the other clauses, namely, clauses 3, 4 and 6 arc purely consequential. Clause 3 reduces the daily maximum from 11 to 9 for perennial factories and from 11 to 10 for seasonal factories. That is in consonance with the major change which we are making by fixing a new maxima for perennial and seasonal factories. Clauses 4 and 6 merely reduce the spread over from 13 hours to 12 and I am sure they need no comment from mc. With regard to the second main provision

331 FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL of the Bill which as I said deals with the rate of payment for overtime, Honourable Members will see that the existing Factory Act does not have a uniform rule with regard to payment of overtime. In fact, there are two different rules, one for perennial factory and the other for seasonal factory. For the seasonal factory, if the hours of work are above 60, then he gets 1 1/2 for the non-seasonal factory, there are really two different rates. If the working hours are between 54 to 60, then the overtime is 1 1/4 times, if it is above 60, it is 1 1/2 times. As Government thinks that as this distinction or differentiation in the rates of payment of overtime is unjustifiable, that it is desirable that there ought to be one single rule for overtime, irrespective of the nature of the factory, to which the rule applies. Consequently the amendment in the Bill proposes that for all overtime, the rates should be one and a half times. I hope that the house will realise that this is a simple measure, that it is a measure long overdue and that it will give its support to this belated measure of bringing Indian legislation in accord with the standards laid down by the International convention. Sir, I move. Factories (Amendment) Bill *The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Sir, I have listened to the speech which the Mover made in support of his amendment and if that speech was the only speech in support of the amendment I certainly would have resisted the amendment, because, so far as I was able to hear, the Honourable the mover of this amendment said that the reason why he had moved his amendment was because I had not explained in my speech whether the Government of India, before putting forth this Bill, had consulted the different Parties to this measure. I certainly failed to say so but I thought that the Honourable member of this house were aware of the fact that for the last several years there has been in existence an institution called the Labour Conference which meets annually and which has a Standing Committee which meets every quarter. It consists of the representatives of labour, the representatives of employers and the representatives of the Provincial Governments. The Government of India, in so far as it is possible, for it to do so, always put forth their legislative measures * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I-No. 7, 21st February 1946, pp. 1312-13.

332 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES before the Conference in order to ascertain the opinion of the different Parties to those measures. The same, Sir, has been the case with regard to this particular measure. I have no particular information with me now as to how many times this measure had come before the Standing Labour Committee or the Labour Conference but I have not the slightest doubt in my mind that this measure was discussed threadbare in one of the two bodies (I forget which). We had come to know that the cotton millowners had certain difficulties and certain objections and it was to meet their point of view that a particular amendment was made. Having regard to that, I do not think that there is any substance in the point made by the mover of this amendment. As I said, if that was the ground and the sole ground, I would have resisted, but, Sir, the debate as it developed has taken a very curious turn. Prof. N. G. Ranga (Guntur-cum-Nellore : Non-Muhammdan Rural): A very welcome turn. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : It is probably a welcome turn. I have noticed from the speeches that have been made from different part of the House that there is now a regular competition in love for labour. One section says one thing and another raises it as though it was an auction by making a higher bid and third one still further. An Honourable Member : You can bid higher. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : In all these debates I am rather unhappy that there were persons in the House who were members of the Royal Commission and who ought to have taken a personal interest in seeing that the measures which they had recommended when they were members of the Commission were put forth, if not from the Government side, at least from the non-official side, should turn my inside out and represent that I was a Tory of Tories. I do not accept that charge but I do feel that it is necessary that this Bill should go to Select Committee so that all the statements that have been made, the claims that have been put forth and the view points that have been urged should be put to the test of actual voting in order to see whether the sentiments that have beeen expressed are mere sentiments or that they arc real convictions. If I did not do so, it is open to the members of the Opposition side to say that as I was a Tory and do not want to advance the Bill beyond the limits that have been fixed, that I on that

333 FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL account shirked accepting this motion. I therefore accept the motion. (At this stage Honourable Members rose in their seats). * * * *Sri R. Venkatasubba Reddiar: To the names I have already submitted in regard to the Select Committee, I want to add two more names—Sri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar and Rai Bahadur Bhattacharyya. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I accept them. Mr. Deputy President: The question is : “That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee consisting of the Honourable Sir Asoka Roy, the Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Prof. N. G. Ranga, Sjt. N. V. Gadgil, Mr. Vadilal Lallubhai, Diwan Chaman Lall, Pandit Balkrishna Sharma, Mr. Muhammad Nauman, Mr. Muhammad M. Killedar, Sir Hasan Ahrawardy, Mr. S. C. Joshi, Mr. A. C. Inskip, Miss Maniben Kara, Mr. S. Guruswami, Chaudhry Sri Chand, Sri T. A. Ramalingam Chettiar, Raj Bahadur D. M. Bhattacharya, and the Mover, with instructions to report on or before the 7th March, 1946, and that the number of members whose presence shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee shall be five.” The motion was adopted. zz *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I-No. 7, 21st February 1946, p. 1318.