Vol. 10 · pages 386–390

369 FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL reasons as labour may have to put forward against granting exemptions will no doubt bear in mind the exigencies of public needs and public interests and do what may be needful in the circumstances. Therefore so far as his first point is concerned. I do not think that I can meet it because the law will not permit me to do so, and, secondly, I do not see why the Provincial Governments should not be trusted to do what is needful in the interest of the public in general. The other question which he raised was whether the Industries and Civil Supplies Department was prepared to take responsibility for this measure. I do not think he should have raised this question because if he had only taken into consideration the way in which the Government of India operates, he would have known that no measure can go before this House unless it has had previously the consent of the Executive Council in which the Member in charge of Industries and Civil Supplies has every right to make his say, but I can say positively that the labour Department had paid the greatest considertion to what was urged by the Department of Industries and Civil Supplies in this matter and it is at their instance mat clause 5 was introduced in this Bill. They were apprehensive that while the general provisions regarding the restriction of hours of labour were essential and necessary and could not be postponed, yet the circumstances in which this country was placed with regard to certain articles should also be borne in mind, and it was at their express instance that this clause was introduced. I hope my Honourable friend will be satisfied that the Industries and Civil Supplies Department has in no way been rushed by this Bill and that this measure has their fullest support. Sir, I move. Mr. President : The question is : “That the Bill further to amend the Factories Act, 1934, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.” The motion was adopted. Mr. President : I shall take clause 2 first and clause 1 at the end. There is an amendment to clause 2 by Messrs. Vadilal Lallubhai and Ramalingam Chettiar. Mr. Vadilal Lallubhai : I have got to make some observation. Dr. Ambedkar says that the law does not provide for exemptions but as the amendment has been drafted it is possible that it will come under

370 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the law. I would like to know whether the amendment of clause 2 as drafted by me docs come under the Law. Mr. President : I am not clear as to what the Honourable Member is driving at. Mr. Vadilal Lallubhai : The Honourable Member said that the law did not provide for exemption. If he reads my amendment to clause 2 he will see that there is no legal bar. I would like to know whether it is because that there is a legal bar that he wants to oppose my amendment or there are other reasons. Mr. President : I believe the Honourable Member has clarified the position sufficiently in his speech. I do not think there can be any doubt on the question. He said that the legal bar was one argument. There was a further argument also that, in his opinion, whatever is necessary will be done by the Government. Am I right ? The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Yes, Sir. * * * *Mr. President : Amendment moved : “That in Clause 4 of the Bill, for the words ‘ten and a half hours or where the factory is seasonal one, eleven and a half ’, the word ‘twelve’ be substituted”. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am afraid I am opposed to this amendment. There are two objections which I see. One objection is a general one. The Honourable Mover of this amendment seems to hold the opinion that if employers in any particular industry have devised a particular plan of employing their labour in their factories, then the law ought to be so framed that it would suit the practice that is prevalent. That is a position which I am not prepared to accept. Many employers may devise many means that may be primarily in the interests of the employers and I think it would be wrong on the part of the State to accept the obligation that in whatever legislation they may propose, the legislation should be made to suit the practice, and that the law should not alter the practice if it is found that the practice is bad. That is my first argument why I am unable to accept this amendment. *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), 4th April 1946, p. 3532.

371 FACTORIES (AMENDMENT) BILL The second argument which I have against this amendment arises from a direct consideration of the matter. If I have understood my Honourable friend correctly, the sort of way in which he employs his labour could, I think, be described in a simple manner in some such fashion : he has as a matter of fact two corps of labour under him, which for purposes of explanation may be called ‘A’ corps and ‘B’ corps358 ! and the way he would like to employ them would be somewhat in this fashion : ‘A’ corps would start work at 8 a.m. and work till 4 O’ clock in the afternoon. At 4 p.m. ‘B’ corps would be discharged and ‘A’ corps would again come in and work till 8 p.m. At 8 p.m. ‘A’ corps will be discharged and ‘B’ corps will be brought in for work and would work till 12 midnight. That, if I understood him correctly, would be the method by which he would work his labour..... Sri T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar : Quite right. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Now, it seems to me that this arrangement is fundamentally opposed to the principle of spreadover. What is the principle of spreadover ? It is this, that as far as possible no worker should be required to stay on the factory premises for any period longer than is necessary for the full employment of the maximum hours prescribed by law. In this Bill we arc providing that the maximum hours per day should be 9. If the amendment was accepted, the worker would have to be kept on the premises, for three hours more, which I submit is not in consonance with the general principle of spreadover. A factory, if I may say so, is not a garden and certainly today has not got all the amenities which a factory ought to have ; and it is very desirable that an employee should be allowed to quit the factory as soon as he possibly can get back to his home, breathe free air, and enjoy such amenities as he can and make the best use of the leisure that the law gives him. For these reasons, I think this amendment is not a good amendment and I am therefore not prepared to accept it.. * * * *The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : I do not think I need say anything at this stage except to express my gratitude to the House and to the Members of the Select Committee who have so greatly *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. V. No. 4, 4th April 1946, p. 3540.

372 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES co-operated with me in carrying this measure through. With regard to the many suggestions which have been made by many speakers who have spoken on this motion, all that I need say is that whichever Government comes into operation, it will undoubtedly have to bear those suggestions in mind. As my Honourable friend, Diwan Chaman Lall said, we are not living in the same time when the Factory Commission reported. Time has advanced. The world has advanced and we have to show that we too, like other modern countries have a regard for the moral standards on which our industrial relations are to be based, and I have no doubt about it that what they have said will be borne in mind and that their suggestions will be given effect to. Sir, I thank the House for the courtesy they have shown me. Mr. President : The question is : “That the Bill as amended be passed.” The motion was adopted. zz

65 * Mica Mines Labour Welfare Fund Bill The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Labour Member) : Sir, I move : “That the Bill to constitute a fund for the financing of activities to promote the welfare of labour employed in the mica mining industry be taken into consideration.” The important provision of the Bill is contained in clause 3, where it is proposed that a levy should be made upon the export of mica in order to constitute a fund for providing for the welfare of the labour employed in the mica mining industry. The nature of the welfare activities which this fund will undertake are detailed in clause 2 of the Bill. It is not necessary for me to go over these clauses and read them to the House. Before I go further I would like to explain to the House why the Government of India have thought it necessary to institute a fund of the sort mentioned in clause 3 of the Bill and I do not think I could do better than read a few extracts from the report of a Committee on labour conditions in mica mining and mica manufacturing industry. The report is made by Prof. Adarkar who was a member of the Fact Finding Committee appointed by the Tripartite Labour Conference. With your permission, Sir, I propose to read a few extracts from this report. On page 27 of this report Prof. Adarkar says : “We did not see urinal or latrine accommodation provided in any mine. Reference to this breach of the Mines Act, has already been made above. One just wonders what the workers do while working 500 feet below they arc called upon to answer calls of nature. Lack of arrangements for good drinking water is a crying evil of the mica mining industry. The doctors told us that diseases like dyspepsia, intestinal trouble, etc., were caused by the presence of harmful *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. V-No. 7, 9th April 1946, p. 3745-47.