Vol. 15 · pages 906–910

887PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (49) GOVERNMENT ORDER ON BANK DISPUTES *Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay) : Mr. Chairman, I see from the speech of the Hon. the Prime Minister that it was more anxious to dispel certain charges which people are likely to make against the Government on the ground that they have shown a bias in favour of capitalists and against labour. I certainly am not one of those who are seeking to make such a charge against the Government. I may make out a case towards the end of my speech that the Government has altogether misjudged the position expressed in my judgement, has not even understood the facts which were before them. 12-00 NOON The Prime Minister’s case—if I understood him correctly— resembled the case of a woman who had given birth to an illegitimate child and when she was questioned on this issue, she said : “Sir, it may be illegitimate, but it is a very small baby.” Well, I suppose we could separate the two issues, the fact that the decision is illegitimate and the fact that the decision probably is a small one. We are concerned only whether the decision is a just one or not. As the time is very short, it is not possible to indulge in any preliminary obersvations before entering into the subject matter. I, therefore, propose to begin with the subject matter itself. A certain issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition is this : Are the modifications made by the Government in the Labour Appellate Tribunal’s Award justified ? The Prime Minister legitimately said that the Government has the right to modify and I entirely agree with him that the Government should have the right to modify the Award, because, after all, * P. D. Vol. 7A. (R. S.), 2nd September 1954, pp. 1207-16.

888 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the Government which he is in charge of, has to consider the welfare of the people as a whole and not merely of one section of the people, and they carry the responsibility all together. Therefore, that is a very legitimate right. As I said, the question is whether they had exercised their right properly. Now, Sir, in order to appreciate the point that I propose to make, I think it is necessary to itemise the modifications which the Government has made in the Labour Appellate Tribunal’s Award. What are the modifications ? So far as I see, the modifications are four. In the first place, the Government has added a new area, called class IV area, which is to comprise populations of less than 30,000. The previous awards, commencing from the award of Mr. Justice Sen, the Sastry award and the Tribunal award, have all agreed that it was enough to classify the areas into three classes. A fourth class was not necessary, but the Government felt, for reasons I have no doubt the Hon. Finance Minister will explain in the course of his reply which led them to create this new class IV area. Sir, the second thing they have done is to have fixed the salary for the Class IV area. So far as A Class banks are concerned, the minimum salary—I am not dealing with the other matters such as house rent allowance and dearness allowance, because what we are concerned with is the basic minimum salary—is Rs. 66 . For B class banks it is Rs. 60; for C class it is Rs. 51, and for D class also it is Rs. 51, I think my friend will correct me if I am wrong. I find the two bracketed together. The third change which the Government has made in the Award of the Tribunal is that they have exempted from the operation of the Award Part B and Part C States, except the three towns, I think, of Delhi, Ajmer and some other town. I forget now. And the fourth modification which the Government has made is to grant complete exemption to a bank which is called the United Bank of India. The Minister for Finance (Shri C. D. Deshmukh): May I point out that protection of the present emoluments is also a modification of the Award ? Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Yes, I take it to be so. Shri C. D. Deshmunkh: I assure the hon. Member that it is so.

889PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Now, Sir, what we have to do is to consider the grounds urged in support of these modification. It is said that banking is a very necessary industry or service for the development of India, its commerce and its industry. It is a thing, I think, which nobody would dispute, that banking is a very essential thing which ought to be sustained by all legitimate means. Secondly if the banks are necessary, then salaries and wage bills of employees must be so fixed that they will allow the banks to make a profit. That is the proposition, I think, which most people would question, but that is one of the foundations on which the modification rests. The first thing to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is this. There is in existence today, in fact in operation, the Sen Award. It has been in operation since 1951. Its scales were certainly much higher than the scales of the Sastry Award. Now the point is this. This award given by Mr. Justice Sen in 1951 has been in operation and was put into operation by the Government by special ordinance, because the Sen Award was declared to be void, by the Supreme Court, on the application of certain bankers on the ground that there was some technical defect in its composition, and, therefore, the Sen Committee was not entitled to give an award. When the bankers had started reducing the salary of the employees, Government stepped in, and by an ordinance declared that the wages were frozen, that is to say, whatever was given to the employees under the Sen Award would continue notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court had declared the Award to be void. Now, Sir, that is one piece of evidence, I submit, which goes to show that the argument that this Award, if placed upon the shoulders of the banks, would not leave them with sufficient profits does not seem, to my mind, to carry any weight at all. Then again, let us compare the figures which have been supplied by the Reserve Bank in a booklet, I understand, which is called, “The Trend of Events” or something like that. It contains figures from 1949 to 1953. I have taken out just the relevant figures. Now, in the case of A class banks, there is a fall in the working capital of 10 per cent gross

890 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES earnings have gone up by 20 per cent, and the dividends have increased by 8 per cent, during this period. In the case of B class banks, there is a fall in deposits of 13 per cent, also a fall in working capital of 13 percent., but gross earnings have gone up by 9 per cent. In the case of C class banks, deposits have gone up by 12 per cent., working capital has gone up by 12 percent, and there has been an increase in gross earnings, and also an increase in dividends. So far as the D class banks are concerned, they appear to me to be a most prosperous institution in this country, because there has been in their case an all-round increase, in deposits, in working capital, gross earnings and dividends. Now, Sir, there is no doubt that there is a certain amount of fall in the profits with regard to calss A banks and class B banks. What are the reasons for it ? Is it the reason that the Wage Bill has increased, or, does the reason lie somewher else ? It seems to me that there is a fall in the deposits, and a considerable rise in the rate of interest, to account for the fact that there has been a certain amount of fall in their profits. And surely, the Wage bill could not be used as a ground for urging that the banks have been sent into ruination by this Award. I therefore, submit that it is not possible to accept the argument that profits have gone down because of Wage bill. They have certainly not gone down on that account, although they may have gone down. Therefore, this argument certainly cannot be used for the modification of the Award in order to bring down the wage as fixed by the Tribunal. Then again, Sir, with regard to the second change, namely, the creation of a class IV area I do not quite undrestand why the Government felt the necessity of creating this new area. The cases were argued before three tribunals. There were innumerable lawyers representing the workers and representing the bankers. Surely, none of them ever thought that it was necessary, in the case of any class of banks, that this new area should be created. What led the Government to create this area, I do not quite understand. Then, Sir, the third change—the exemption of Part B and Part C States—seems to me to be one of the most difficult things to justify.

891PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Mr. Chairman: It is getting time. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I have just a few things to say ........... Mr. Chairman: Yes, as briefly as possible. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: Thank you, Sir. It is very difficult to understand on what ground these two areas of Part B and Part C States could be excluded from the operation of this Award. Now, Sir, what does this mean ? It means that the lowest scale which the Government has laid down for class IV area, namely, a minimum salary of Rs. 51, is not to be operative in Part B and Part C States, that is to say, the employees have been left at the mercy of the employer. They may pay them any wages they like. May be that banking is necessary and that banks should make profits. That also be a reasonable thing, but should we allow this kind of exploitation, complete exploitation ? No minimum standards have been fixed at all. It seems to me completely inexplicable and un-understandable. Now, again, the fourth modification made by the Government in respect of the exemption of the United Bank of India is also a very extraordinary thing. So far as I have been able to gather any information about this particular institution, originally there were four banks started by the refugees in Calcutta to help themselves, I believe, and to carry on the business of banking. The Deputy Minister for Finance (Shri A. C. Guha) : I am afraid the lion. Member is not quite correct. The banks were there long before the partition. Only, they were amalgamated into one bank after the partition. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: I am very glad to hear that. That supports me much more. I was taking a broken reed for my stand. I take it that this is a long-standing institution, but they were amalgamated. Shri A. C. Guha: May be long-standing but may not be sound-standing. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar: This bank, according to the information I have, has a working capital of Rs. 33 crores.