Vol. 10 · pages 616–620

595 L. A. DEBATES (CENTRAL) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (d) Relief can be given under section 15(3) of the Act. But no prosecutions are launched as it has always been possible to remove defects so far discovered by administrative action. (e) No prosecutions have been launched. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : Why are the payments made late ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : In a huge administration such delays are bound to occur. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : What does the administration do in the case of late payments ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : They make the payments. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : Only make the payments, or do they do anything further ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : What does the Honourable Member expect the administration to do ? Mr. Lalchand Navalrai: To avoid these occurrences, what does the Government do ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no doubt that they must be trying to avoid these delays. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : But what do they do ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know. If the Honourable Member wants an answer, he may put down a specific question. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai: Will the Honourable Member direct the administration to see that such things do not recur and that warnings be issued. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, certainly. 27 * High Rates for Contracts for Construction of Aerodromes at Gaya Nawadih @ 143. Mr. K. C. Neogy : (a) Will the Honourable the Labour Member please state whether it is a fact that contracts for the * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I or 1943, 19th February 1943, pp. 417-18. @ Answer to this question laid on the table, the questioner being absent.

596 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES construction of certain aerodromes were sanctioned by the Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department, originally at very high rates against which the Provincial Public Works Department was compelled to lodge protests ? (b) Is it a fact that as a result of such protests a committee was appointed to examine these rates, and the committee reduced the rates to about one third of what were agreed upon by the Chief Engineer ? (c) Is it a fact that the contractors also agreed lo reduce the rates correspondingly proving thereby that the rates originally awarded were abnormally high ? (d) If the answer to (c) above be in the affirmative, what action do Government propose to take against the Chief Engineer who was responsible for sanctioning the original rates ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) Rates for the construction of the aerodromes in question were accepted by Chief Engineer on proposals put forward by the Executive Engineer through the Superintending Engineer. The rales were high but reliable contractors were not obtainable for work of the dimensions required at lower rales at the lime the work was started. A report was received through the Divisional Commissioner complaining that these rates were unduly high. (b) and (c) Almost a month before the receipt of any protests from the local officers the Chief Engineer had instructed the Superintending Engineer to make an enquiry and subsequently deputed his Personal Assistant and Financial Adviser to make a further enquiry. By that time conditions had become easier and it was possible to enforce reductions in the rates previously accepted. As a result some rates were considerably reduced, but no rate was reduced to one-third of the previous rates. The reductions accepted by the contractors were nil in respect of certain works, 15 per cent in respect of main runway, 50 per cent in respect of ordinary buildings, and between 30 per cent and 60 per cent in the case of special buildings. The contractor has however, refused to accept the reduced rates proposed in the case of domestic buildings which have therefore been taken away from him and given to another contractor at reduced rates. (d) There is no case for taking any action against the Chief Engineer.

597 L. A. DEBATES (CENTRAL) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 28 * High Rates for Works of Landing Grounds in New Delhi Cantonment @ 144. Mr. K. C. Neogy : (a) Will the Honourable the Labour Member please state whether it is a fact that the rates for works of Landing Grounds in the new Cantonment, New Delhi, were sanctioned and awarded at high levels originally, but later on they had to be reduced, and the contractors are now doing the works at these reduced rates ? (b) If the answer to (a) above be in the affirmative, why were the higher rates sanctioned in the beginning, and under whose authority ? (c) What action do Government propose to lake against the officers who are responsible for this state of affairs ? (d) What precautions have been, or are going to be, taken by the Government of India to prevent a recurrence of such instances to ensure rigid economy in the execution of all such works ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) and (b). Three items of works, viz. (1) Landing Ground, (2) Domestic Buildings and (3) Technical Buildings were carried out in connection with the construction of the New Cantonment, New Delhi, Landing Ground. As regards (1) and (2) the answer is in the negative. As regards (3) some reduction in rates was effected owing to change of specification. (c) and (d). Do not arise. 29 † Irregularities in Connection with Application of Chapter VI-A of the Indian Railways Act 146. Mr. N. M. Joshi (on behalf of Mr. Lalchand Navalrai) : (a) Will the Honourable the Labour Member be pleased to state when the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act XIV of 1930 came into force ? * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I of 1943, 19th February 1943, p. 118. @ Answer to this question laid on the table, the questioner being absent. † Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I of 1943, 19th February 1943, pp. 420-21.

598 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (b) Is it a fact that in the annual reports of the Conciliation Officer (Railways) and the Supervisor of Railway Labour, who is an Inspector under the Act, it has been noted that the same irregularities have continued to be noticed on the Railways in connection with the application of Chapter VI-A of the Indian Railways Act ? (c) If the reply to part (b) above be in the affirmative, has the Conciliation Officer (Railways) and the Supervisor of Railway Labour at any time invoked the aid of penalty provisions of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act, 1930, to stop these irregularities ? If so, will the Honourable Member please lay a statement on the table of the House giving instances ? (d) If the reply to first portion of part (c) above be in the negative, will the Honourable Member please give reaons for not enforcing the penalty clauses of the law ? (e) Is it proposed to do so now ? If not, why not ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) Section 1 of the Indian Railways (Amendment) Act of 1930 came into force on the 26lh March, 1930. Section 2 came into force on different Railways on the dates given below : North Western and East Indian Railways—1st April, 1931. Great Indian Peninsula and Eastern Bengal (now Bengal and Assam) Railways—1st April, 1932. Bombay, Baroda and Central India and Madras and Southern Maharatta Railways—1st November, 1935. Bengal and North Western (now Oudh and Tirhut) Railways— 1st October, 1937. South Indian and Rohikund and Kumaon (now part of Oudh and Tirhut) Railways—1st April, 1940. Bengal, Nagpur and Assam Bengal (now part of Bengal and Assam) Railways—1st January, 1941. (b) Yes. (c) No. (d) and (c). It has not been necessary to invoke the aid of penalty provisions of the law as it has always been possible to rectify irregularities by administrative action.

599 L. A. DEBATES (CENTRAL) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 30 * Field of Activities of the Conciliation Officer (Railways) 147. Mr. N. M. Joshi (on behalf of Mr. Lalchand Navalrai): (a) Will the Honourable the Labour Member be pleased to state whether it is a fact that on the creation of his post the Conciliation Officer (Railways) was posted to Calcutta, to carry on his conciliation activities amongst the group of railways with headquarters at Calcutta ? (b) Is it a fact that the office of the Conciliation Officer (Railways) and the Supervisor of Railway Labour has now been transferred to Lahore ? Will the field of his conciliation activities be confined to the group of railways with headquarters at Calcutta, or to the North Western Railway at Lahore or to railways with headquarters at both these places, Lahore and Calcutta ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) Yes. (b) The headquarters of the Conciliation Officer (Railways) and the Supervisor of Railway Labour was transferred to Lahore purely as a temporary measure as a new incumbent to the post was being appointed and the Deputy Supervisor of Railway Labour whose headquarters are at Lahore was holding additional charge of the post of Conciliation Officer (Railways) and the Supervisor of Railway Labour. The headquarters have now been transferred back to Calcutta after the appointment of a new incumbent to the post. Mr. N. M. Joshi : May I ask whether the Government will consider the question of extending the function of the Conciliation Officer to Railways other than those headquarters are in Calcutta ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Yes, I will consider that. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): I have allowed these two questions to be put by Mr. N. M. Joshi, though the Honourable Member, Mr. Lalchand Navalrai, who gave notice of these questions had not authorised Mr. Joshi. It is ordinarily the practice that no other Member can put a question unless the Honourable Member in whose name a question stands has authorised him to do so. But in the special circumstances of this case, I have allowed Mr. Joshi to put the questions. * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. 1 of 1943, 19th February 1943, p. 421.