Vol. 10 · pages 76–80

11 *Election of Members to the Standing Committee for the Labour Department The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Labour Member): Sir, I beg to move : “That this Assembly do proceed to elect, in such manner as the Honourable the President may direct, three non-official Members to serve on the Standing Committee to advise on subjects with which the Labour Department is concerned.” Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): Motion moved: “That this Assembly do proceed to elect, in such manner as the Honourable the President may direct, three non-official Members to serve on the Standing Committee to advise on subjects with which the Labour Department is concerned.” Dr. P.N. Banerjea (Calcutta Suburbs : Non-Muhammadan Urban): Sir, there are several Standing Committees attached to the different Departments, but there is no Standing Committee of this House which numbers only three. Now, what can be the reason for the small number of Members elected by this House ? Either the Labour Department is not an important Department, or it may be due to the fact that the Standing Committee is never called, or called very rarely, do discuss any matter. I should like to have information on either of these two subjects. Is the Labour Department an important Department ? I find that it is in charge of a very eminent person like Dr. Ambedkar. Even if it was an unimportant Department before, it should cease to be an unimportant Department at the present day at least so long as he is in control of the subject. But if it is to be an important Department, the Standing Committee should consist of a much larger number of persons. Look at the Standing Finance Committee, look at the Standing Finance Committee for Railways, and look at the Public Accounts Committee. The number of Members of any of these Committees is much larger than three. I am told that this Committee does not meet *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. II, 20th March 1943, pp. 1278-80.

60 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES very often I do not know whether it is a fact and that even when it meets, not much business is placed before this Committee. If that be so, I am afraid the utility of the Committee will be greatly diminished. I, therefore, appeal to the Government to increase the number of Members to eight. I understand that two Members are selected from the other place. I suggest that eight Members should be elected by this House. If you like, you may increase the number of Members given to the other House. The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am very glad to notice that this motion of mine has excited so much interest from the House. The number three, as I understand, is based neither on the importance nor on any other consideration, but I am told that it is a standard number and that if there are any enlargements or deviations from the standard number, they constitute only an exception and not the rule. Now, Sir, with regard to the point raised by my Honourable friend Dr. Banerjea that the reason why the number was fixed at three is because the Department pays scant courtesy to this Committee, I submit, is not borne out by facts. The House will notice from what I am saying now that in 1940 there were two meetings of this Committee held and some very important business was placed before the Committee. For instance, at the two meetings that were held in 1940 the subject matter that was placed before the Committee included the conclusions of the Labour Conference, report of the Technical Training Inquiry Committee, scheme for the training of skilled artizans and accommodation in Delhi. In 1941 one meeting was held and there the business placed before the Committee included conclusions of the second Conference of Labour Ministers and progress made with the technical training under the Bevin training scheme. In 1942 one meeting was held and there was also an adjourned meeting held subsequently. The proceedings of the third Conference of Labour Ministers, the summary of the views of the employers and workers’ representatives on certain subjects, building programme in Delhi and Simla, proposals relating to the recognition of Trade Unions, progress made with the technical training under the Bevin training scheme and amendments of the National Service (Technical Personnel) Ordinance, 1940, were the subjects that were placed before the meeting of the Committee. I am sure nobody can say that the Department has not been

61 ELECTION OF MEMBERS......LABOUR DEPARTMENT placing before the Committee matters which are of importance and interest to Labour. Then, the other thing I would like to submit to the House is this that this is not the only Committee to advise the Labour Department. Besides this, we have now instituted a Plenary Conference which consists of representatives of the Central, Provincial Governments, and also the Indian States, the representatives of employers and of labour are also represented on the Plenary Conference on a very extensive scale. There is no case for so large an increase asked for by the Honourable Dr. Banarjea. In addition to that we have also got the Standing Labour Advisory Committee. Having regard to the circumstances I hold the view that if there was any case for the enlargement of the personnel of the Committee, that case has considerably suffered by reason of the constitution of the Plenary Conference as well as by the Standing Labour Committee. However, if my Honourable friend is anxious that the personnel of this Committee should be increased, I am prepared to increase the number to eight-assigning five to this House and three to the upper Chamber: and I hope this will satisfy my Honourable friends in this House. Mr. H.A. Sathar H. Essak Sait (West Coast and Nilgiris : Muhammadan) will the Honourable member please tell the house whether Members of this Committee are members of the Plenary Conference ? The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Some of them are Messrs Mehta and Joshi are Members both of the Plenary Conference as well the Standing Committee. Mr. H.A. Sathar H. Essak Sait : Are they ex-officio members of the Plenary Conference ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : No, they represent their organisations. Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Ghani (Tirhut Division : Muham madan) : Sir, in view of the war conditions this Labour Committee has become very very important. It deals with the labour questions. Besides, as has just been pointed out by the Honourable the Member in charge, this Committee deals with many other important questions such as building matters.....

62 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim): The Honourable Labour Member has already replied. The question is : “That this Assembly do proceed to elect, in such manner as the Honourable the President may direct, five non-official Members to serve on the Standing Committee to advise on subjects, with which the Labour Department, is concerned.” The motion was adopted. zz

12 *The Indian Tea Control (Amendment) Bill The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (Labour Member): Sir, in view of the observations which fell from my Honourable friend, Mr. Joshi it is only proper that I should rise to state the position of Government on the points that he has made. In a certain sense, the remarks of Mr. Joshi might appear to be irrelevant. We are discussing the Tea Control Act and obviously any provisions dealing with conditions of labour would be entirely out of place therein. But looking at it from a larger point of view, it must be admitted that when the State is asked to suspend the laws of supply and demand with regard to any industry, it is fair that those who are interested in labour should ask that their interests should be protected. And it is from this point of view that I say that a reply from Government is necessary. Sir, the first point which Mr. Joshi made was that it is now more than 12 years since the Royal Commission on Labour reported and that the Government of India has practically done nothing with regard to the recommendations of that Commission. Sir, I agree that 12 years is a long period for any Government to lake in order to deal with the recommendations made by a Royal Commission which was appointed to investigate into this matter. But I think on the facts to which I propose to refer in the brief remarks that I am making, Mr. Joshi will realise and the House will also realise that much serious blame would not be laid at the door of the Government of India. As the Honourable Member will remember, the Royal Commission on Labour made five recommendations with regard to the tea plantation. First was that the Assam Labour Emigrant Act should be repealed and another Act permitting very much greater fluidity to the labour should be enacted. The second recommendation was to establish a wage board for fixing the wages of labourers there. Third recommendation dealt with the *Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. II, 23rd March 1943, pp. 1370-73