43

*ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (Bombay City) : Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the first reading of this Bill. In rising to speak I am very much conscious of the handicaps under which I am labouring. I regret I have not been here to listen to the speeches that have been made by my predecessors who have spoken on the Bill. It is a misfortune which unfortunately I have not been able to escape. My work elsewhere has not permitted me to be here and to benefit myself by listening to points made by the previous speakers. I am also labouring under the handicap that so many speakers have preceded me and the debate has gone on for such a long time that I am wondering whether there is anything left for me to say at this fag end. But I take courage, if I may say so, that in a Bill of such a character, so vast, so extensive—it has 84 clauses—there might be much on which even a member rising to speak at the fag end may find something to say. My honourable friend Mr. Jamnadas Mehta, I think, very correctly described that this Bill was of such a vast character that even if Sheshashayi were to undertake to write about it and even if the ocean was available as ink and the earth as paper to write upon, he would probably not find it sufficient to cover the whole Bill. Knowing these limitations I propose to be very concise.

In order that this Bill may be understood, I think it is necessary to read its provisions in the light of the previous legislation. I believe and I think it will be readily agreed that the importance of the clauses of this Bill will not be apparent unless we compare and contrast its provisions with the provisions of the previous legislation. The last clause of the Bill makes it amply clear that this Bill is intended to replace the Bombay Trade Disputes Conciliation Act of 1934, and the question therefore that primarily arises for consideration is whether any case has been made out by the Prime Minister, who is in charge of this measure, for the change which he is now introducing by this Bill. The Act of 1934 was intended to provide a machinery for conciliation. The principle of the Act of 1934 was voluntary conciliation. Now this Bill introduces a change, namely,

*B.L.A. Debates, Vol. 4, pp. 1330-59, dated 15th September 1938.