Vol. 2 · pages 236–240

217ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL of conciliation proceedings and also for preventing molestation of any individuals in order to prevent them ‘from carrying on their usual work or business during a conciliation proceeding connected with such work or business’. In other words, it was the intention of Government that after conciliation proceedings began, picketing at the mill should not be allowed. Even if a strike is already in progress, it was intended that picketing in the mill premises should be stopped. If the two parties intend to come to a settlement, it was considered that this would be a desirable measure. On the other hand, we have no prohibition against the employees locking out the mill hands. It is considered in some quarters that the right of picketing is something like a sacred right and, after full and careful consideration, we have decided to move an amendment to omit the words in clause 15 which prevent picketing at the mill gate.” That was the position that he took, and, Sir, I do seriously contend that if a strike was permitted conciliation would be more probable. That is an aspect which I think has not been considered at all. Why should an employer be ready to conciliate when he knows that he has got 4 months and 25 days to mobilise his forces, when he knows that within the 4 months and 25 days no worker can mobilise, no worker can prepare, and when he knows further that the time within which to go on strike is limited only to two months ? There is no incentive, there is no pressure, there is no urge on the employer, in circumstances of this kind, to come to terms ; and if the honourable mover of the Bill is of opinion, and his object is, that this conciliation machinery should fructify, should result in some sort of tangible good which would be acceptable to both the parties, then I submit that the proper procedure to adopt is the procedure adopted by Sir Robert Bell, namely, to permit the strike to go on, in other words, to continue the provisions of the present Act. But, Sir, here the Government is not even prepared to take the position which a bureaucrat took. The position that was taken up by a bureaucrat was that a strike need not be prevented while a popular Government, which claims to be elected on Labour votes, which does not stand by the position taken by one whom they always regarded as a bureaucrat, with no interest for Labour and no interest in the welfare of the country. If this democracy—well, it might be, but I do not say it is democracy—a democracy which enslaves the working class, a class which is devoid of education, which is devoid of the means of life, which is devoid of any power of organisation, which is devoid of intelligence, I submit, is no democracy but a mockery of democracy. So much for the main provisions of the Bill. Then, Sir, there are certain other provisions of the Bill to which I wish to advert, and these provisions are contained in clauses 4 to 20. Looking at the clauses, they refer to four different topics. They refer to different clauses of unions,—qualified unions, registered unions, representative unions. Sir, I had the opportunity of reading the previous draft of this Bill. That previous draft had a different phraseology, such as horizontal unions, vertical

218 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES unions, diagonal unions and perpendicular unions. I am glad that that phraseology has been dropped. I was never strong in mathematics, and certainly knew very little geometry, and I think for the small mercy that we have got for the change of phraseology it would be proper if I rendered my thanks to the honourable mover and those who have prepared the present Bill. The second thing with which these clauses deal is the terms and conditions and the procedure with regard to the registration of the different classes of unions. Thirdly, the terms and conditions and the procedure for these recognised unions or registered unions to be declared representative unions, and fourthly, the conditions for the registration of a union and for the cancellation of its declaration as a representative union. Now, Sir, I have been considerably at a loss to understand what practical connection these clauses have with the main provisions of the Bill. The main provisions of the Bill are, firstly, compulsory conciliation and, secondly, penalty for strikes during conciliation proceedings. To my mind, I do not see any organic connection between these clauses and the other clauses in dealing with these two topics which are the main purposes of the Bill. And, referring to the title of the Bill, I found that rather than disclosing the purpose it tries to conceal it. The Bill has a title which says “A Bill to make provision for the promotion of peaceful and amicable settlement of industrial disputes by conciliation and arbitration and for certain other purposes”. Sir, what are the other purposes ? And why have they not been specified in the title of the Bill ? Is it something of which one need feel ashamed ? I do not know. Either there is some practical connection between the two parts of the Bill or there is not ; if there is, that ought to have been disclosed, and if there is no organic connection, then the logical conclusion is that these sections ought to be deleted from the Bill. But, Sir, my search has been rewarded by the discovery that there is an organic connection between the two. What that organic connection is, will be readily seen by reference to clause 75 of the Bill. Clause 75 of the Bill says : “No employee shall be entitled to appear in any proceedings under this Act except through the representative of employees.” Sir, this clause is the most fundamental and I say this is the most destructive clause of all trade unionism in India. Who is a representative of employees who is entitled to represent labour in conciliation proceedings ? No one will have any locus standi in any negotiations for the settlement of an industrial dispute, no matter what his qualifications may be, unless he falls within the definition of what is called by this Bill as a representative of employees, and it is for the purpose of defining who is a representative of labour my honourable friend has introduced clauses 4 to 20 in the Bill. They all hang on this section. The important question, therefore, is who is a representative of employees under this Bill ? Now, Sir, under this Bill, there are two categories of unions which will have the right to represent labour. The first is a union which has 20 per cent. of the workers as its members, or rather not less than 20 per cent of

219ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL the workers as its members, and recognised by the employer. Secondly, a union whose membership is more than 50 per cent. can represent labour in the conciliation proceedings. These are, therefore, the two categories of unions which alone have the right to represent labour. Now, Sir, my honourable friend the Minister chooses to call them “representative unions”—both of them. I disagree with his terminology. I think a spade ought to be called a spade. Calling a spade a spade, what I submit is this : there are, no doubt, two kinds of representative unions under this Bill, but the important point to note is that one is a slave union and the other a free union. Sir, there is no exaggeration and there is no violence done to language if I say that a union which can have locus standi, a legal existence, a right to represent and a right to speak, only if it secures the prior approval of the employer is a slave union and not a union of freemen. I wish he had used the word “approval”; the word “recognised” is very inappropriate ; the proper definition should have been “a union approved by the employer”, as we would then have seen in plain term what we are asked to give our sanction to. Now, Sir, what I do not understand—and my honourable friend will explain it to me—is why he has made registration under this Bill a condition precedent for a union to obtain a representative character. I find great difficulty in understanding these provisions in the Bill. Sir, the provision as it stands today is this. There is a Trade Unions Act passed by the Government of India in 1926. It is called the Trade Unions Act. The Bill does not repeal that Act ; in fact, that Act remains, and further this Bill insists that any union before it can be registered under the provisions of this Bill must be registered under that Act. That is clear from the definition of a union given in this Bill. I will presently tell the House why this has been done. I find that there is some design behind it. The position is, therefore, this : a union has to have twofold registration, registration under the Act of 1926 and registration, under the new Act. It seems to me that it would be better if I adverted to the advantages which registration under the Act of 1926 gives to a union which is registered under it, so that we may know what is it that this Bill gives in addition or whether there is anything which this Bill takes away. Applying my mind to the effect of registration of a union under the Act of 1926, these are the results that follow. The union becomes a corporation with a right to sue and to be sued. As a corporation it has certainly a right to represent its members ; otherwise, a corporate entity has no meaning. Secondly, as the House will realise, under the Government of India Act, 1935, a union registered under the Act of 1926 gets the right of political representation, that is to say, a union registered under the Act of 1926 can elect members to this House, and there are honourable members in this House who will bear testimony to that fact. Similarly, members of unions which are registered under the Act of 1926 have the right also to send representatives to the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Now, Sir, the question that arises is this.

220 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES If registration under the Act of 1926 gives the unions the right to represent, where is the necessity of requiring further registration under this Bill ? If a union registered under the Act of 1926 is competent to send members as representatives of the whole labour body to speak in this House, to vote in this House, where is the necessity of requiring registration under this Bill ? I should like to have an answer to that question later on. What the Bill does is a very queer thing, which again I am not able to understand. A union registered under the Act of 1926 will not have, under the House to realise the anomaly of the position. A union registered under the Act of 1926, while it is competent enough to represent workers in the Legislature, is not competent under this Bill to represent labour before the Conciliator. Why is this anomaly ? The Bill does not merely create an anomaly. I say it takes away a privilege from the unions which are registered under the Act of 1926. In this connection, I should like to draw the attention of the House to what used to take place under the provisions of the Bombay Act of 1934. When conciliation proceedings started, members who know the provisions of that Act will remember, under section 9 the labourers were represented by delegates. That was the provision in that Act. This is the wording of section 9 : “On receipt of notice under section 8, the parties to a trade dispute shall within the time specified in the notice or within such time as may be fixed by the Conciliator in this behalf, appoint delegates in such manner as the Conciliator may direct.” Therefore, labour, in conciliation proceedings under the Act of 1934, was represented by delegates. How were these delegates chosen ? Who were the parties who were entitled to choose those delegates to represent labour before the Conciliator, under the Act of 1934 ? Sir, I have gone to the rules made under this Act, and a reference to the rules will show that the parties who were entitled to elect delegates were the registered trade unions, the unions registered under the Trade Disputes Act of 1926. That is provided by rule 3 of the rules made under the Bombay Act of 1934. It is, therefore, clearly established that up to this moment a union which was registered under the 1926 Act of the Central Legislature, by reason of the fact that it was a corporation, had the right to represent workers in all places and at all junctions. Constitutionally, by the Government of India Act of 1935, they have been given the right to represent labour in the Legislatures, and the Bombay Act of 1934 specifically recognised that the trade unions registered under that Act, namely, the Bombay Act of 1934, were the only bodies entitled to send delegates before a conciliator. Sir, my first complaint is that this Bill takes away a valuable right which the unions had and gives it to whom ? It gives it to slave unions, as I am going presently to show. If it was given to free unions, I would not mind at all. Then, Sir, why is it—this is an important point to understand—why is it that the unions registered under this Bill are also required to be registered under the Central

221ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL Act of 1926 ? Sir, it is nothing else but a piece of carpet—bagging, as the Americans say. My honourable friend wants that the unions which will be formed under this Bill should not only get the right to represent before a conciliator but should also walk away with the political representation which the unions registered under the Act of 1926 now possess. It is a snatching policy. And all this endowment of political and economic power, for whose benefit is it ? I repeat again that it is for the benefit of the slave unions. Of course, if my honourable friend thinks that there is nothing wrong in having unionism based upon the principle of approval of the master, I have no quarrel. It is his philosophy of life ; it is not mine. If he thinks that a man who is enslaved is a free man, it is his view ; if he thinks that in order that we may have peace in industry the worker ought to be chained to his master, as he will be, it is for him ; I have no quarrel. But, for myself, I am not prepared to accept that position. We do not want mere peace, and I repudiate the peace, the kind of peace that we are asked to have. (Mr. S. V. Parulekar : Hear, hear !) Certainly, it is the peace of a man who has a contended belly and whose stomach, touches his buttons. I do not want that kind of peace. The question that I am interested in is this. I am prepared to take a charitable view of the matter, and I want to know whether this charitable view will fructify and produce anything. It may be, as my honourable friend says, that there is no unionism in India ; it may be that there are people who are spoiling the growth of unions. I am surprised that he should still entertain the fear of members of the communist party, who were a thorn in the side of the Congress before, but who have now walked in—they avow peace, they avow truth, they avow non-violence, and they have even paid four annas, as I understand,—why, I ask, should he have any fear now of anybody spoiling the game of peaceful development of labour ? Supposing it to be so, let us see how all this will end. If my honourable friend can satisfy me that there will come a time when what I call the slave unions will ripen into free unions, I probably might reconsider my attitude again. But I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that there will never be free unions at all ; and that is because the conditions that he has imposed upon free unions are so impossible that they could never be fulfilled. What is the condition for a free union ? The condition is that you must at all times show that on your roll you have got 50.1 per cent. membership ; that is the condition. Twenty per cent., not enough ; 25 per cent., not enough ; you must always show the mathematical proportion of 50.1 per cent. if you want to be free. Sir, the question I should like to ask is this : Is this a reasonable condition ? The laws of the Romans, if I may use the analogy, began with enslavement. There was a provision for manumission, as we technically say. The slave ultimately became emancipated and became a free man, a civis. Applying the same analogy, I say that we begin with slavery, because the approval and the recognition are nothing