Vol. 10 · pages 781–785

760 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (e) whether it is a fact that some who passed the Readership Examination in the year 1936, in the first attempt, have become junior to those who qualified after four years (in 1940), in the second attempt; and (f) if the answers to parts (a) to (c) above be in the affirmative, whether the Honourable Member proposes to remove the anomalies of the rules, and to expedite the final decision of the case, so that the Readership Examination, due in May, 1944, in the Government of India Press, New Delhi, may not be postponed for want of decision; if not, what advantage is in view in keeping the decision in abeyance for so long ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a), (b) and (c) Yes. The delay in finalising the decision of Government on the points raised is due to the widely divergent views expressed by the different parties whose opinions were invited. (d) Certain anomalies involved in die application of the rules have been brought to the notice of Government. Proposals to remove them are at present under the consideration of Government. (c) The question does not arise. Appointments to the posts of readers are made by seniority and not by merit on the results of a qualifying examination. (f) As stated in reply to (d) above, proposals regarding the amendment of the rules on the subject have been received and are under examination. It is hoped to issue orders well before the next readership examination in the Government of India Press, New Delhi (due in May 1944) is held. 193 * Amendments to the New Delhi Rent Control Order Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Ghani : (a) Will the Honourable the Labour Member please state whether amendments to the New Delhi Rent Control Order announced on January 24th, 1944, arc applicable, retrospectively, as was stated by his Joint Secretary, Mr. Mozumdar, * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. I of 1944, 28th February 1944, pp. 657-58

761L. A. DEBATES (CENTRAL) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS at a Press Conference, the account of which was published in the New Delhi Statesman of January 27th ? (b) Is he aware that these amendments are interpreted by the Delhi courts to apply retrospectively ? (c) If the intention of Government was not to give these amendments retrospective effect, do they propose to issue a clarification of their intention, in view of the interpretation placed on them by the Delhi courts ? If not, why not ? (d) Is he aware that a copy of the Gazette Extraordinary, dated the 24th January, in which these amendments were announced was privately handed over by his office to Mr. Shiva Rao, New Delhi correspondent of the Hindu, at a time when copies were not available to the public, to enable Mr. Shiva Rao to take advantage of it, in case of ejectment which was pending in Delhi civil courts and judgment on which was to be announced on January 25th ? (e) Is he aware that his Joint Secretary, Mr. Mozumdar, has issued orders that house No. 7 Barakhamba Road in which Mr. Shiva Rao resides as a tenant, should be requisitioned, in case Mr. Shiva Rao was ejected in pursuance of the decree if given in favour of his landlord by the civil court ? If these allegations are correct, does the Honourable Member propose to institute an enquiry in the alleged partiality of the Government servants ? (f) Is it a fact that Mr. Mozumdar had issued orders that in the event of Mr. shiva Rao being ejected, he should be provided with a three-roomed hutment by Government ? Do Government propose to provide similar facilities to other journal in New Delhi ? If not, why not ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) No such Statement was made by Joint Secretary, Labour Department. (b) We have no information on the subject. (c) No. The interpretation of Statutes and Orders is a matter for the courts and not for Government. (d) No. The allegation is incorrect. (e) Yes, the order was passed because the house would, in the event mentioned, have fallen vacant and be available for use by Government. There is no question of Government requisitioning it for Mr. Shiva Rao. It is the policy of Government to requisition all available accommodation in Delhi that may fall vacant.

762 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES (f) NO. Sir Muhammad Yamin Khan : What is the intention of Government ? Do they want to give it retrospective effect or not ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : The legal intention is always for the Courts to interpret. Sir Muhammad Yamin Khan : The Courts will undoubtedly interpret, but what is the order of the Government ? Is it to have retrospective effect or is it only for the future ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : That is a matter which must be left to the Courts. Mr. N. M. Joshi : Is it not a fact that landlords in Delhi are harassing their tenants in order to profiteer and what steps are Government taking to stop it ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no information that the landlords are harassing, but we had a deputation from the tenants who placed before Government certain complaints and the amendment of the New Delhi Rent Control Order was made to meet some of the grievances. Sir Muhammad Yamin Khan : In this case the house owner is a retired Executive Engineer, Rai Bahadur Durgadas, who has a big family of 20 persons, whom he cannot accommodate anywhere else. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no information on the point. Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Ghani: Is it the intention of the Government to clarify the effect of any order passed if the Court feels any ambiguity ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not follow the Honourable Member’s question. Maulvi Muhammad Abdul Ghani : May I know whether the Government propose to issue any clarification of their order passed regarding the applicability of its retrospectiveness to the Court ?

763L. A. DEBATES (CENTRAL) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Certainly, if there is any ambiguity it will be the duty of the Government to clarify it. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : Is the order very clear or does it require any interpretation ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I can supply a copy to my Honourable friend. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : My question is this : Is the order clear and unambiguous or liable to interpretations ? The Honourable member says that the Court will interpret it. The Court will undoubtedly do it but only in the latter case. The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not know what my Honourable friend wants to convey. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai: My question is this. The Honourable Member said that order may be interpreted by the Court. But I say, is the order itself liable to interpretations, on which the Honourable Member says that it will be to the Court……….. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : That is an argument. Mr. Lalchand Navalrai : I am putting the question. Mr. President (The Honourable Sir Abdur Rahim) : Order, order. 194 * Employment of Women for Underground Work in Collieries 701. Mr. K. S. Gupta : (a) Is the Honourable Member for Labour aware that Mr. Sorensen described the recruiting of women to work in coal mines in India as “most serious and retrograde step” ? (b) Is it not a fact that the price of foodstuffs and other necessities of life have gone up four to five times the pre-war rates while wages * Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III of 1944, 30th March 1944, p. 1745.

764 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES in the majority of the collieries are now 50 per cent above the pre-war rates ? (c) Is it a fact that women are allowed to work in coal mines because the required number of men are not available for working in the mines ? (d) Is it not a fact that amenities for service in collieries are far below the requirements of workers, which forced the men workers to seek service elsewhere for pay and prospect far superior to those of collieries ? (e) Is it not a fact that women are prohibited from working in collieries and for services underground (i.e., mines other than coal) in the United Kingdom and the United States ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) I have seen press notices to this effect. (b) I have no precise information regarding the rise in the cost of living in the coalfields compared with pre-war. Foodstuffs are provided for coalminers at concession rates. (c) Yes. (d) There is evidence that coalmining labour sought service on military works in the neighbourhood of collieries in preference to working in coalmines. As regards the amenities, I would refer the Honourable Member to part (c) of my reply to his question No. 273 on the 1st March, 1944. (c) Women are not allowed to work underground in the United Kingdom. Women are, however, employed in some surface work in collieries. I have no information regarding the United States. Mr. N. M. Joshi : May I ask whether it is a fact that the price of rice in pre-war days was 12 seers to the rupee and the present price charged in the coal areas for miners is 6 seers to the rupee ? The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I have no precise information on the point.