z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-04.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 205
ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL 205
concern in this speech will be to refute that argument and repudiate that position. Now in order that I may make my position clear, I will begin from some very elementary propositions. First of all, let me make clear what we understand by the word “strike”. What does it mean ? It is better, I think, to understand the meaning of the term “strike”. In plain, popular language, a strike is nothing more than a breach of contract of service. When a worker strikes, all that it means is that he commits a breach of contract of service : there is nothing more in it, and nothing less in it. And the next question that I propose to raise is this : how is this breach of contract of service dealt with by the law as it stands today on the Indian Statute Book? Does the Indian law recognise this right to strike or not ? And, if it does, in what way ; and, if it punishes, in what way does it punish it ? Sir, here again, I will begin with an elementary proposition, and that elementary proposition is this : that an act or an omission may be a civil wrong, or it may be a crime. And the first question that I propose to raise—I really wish to deal with this matter exhaustively, because I do not want to leave any doubt at all as regards my position in this matter—the first question I propose to raise is : is breach of contract of service a civil wrong ? The answer that the law gives is : Yes, it is a civil wrong. What are the remedies for an aggrieved person who has suffered this civil wrong? That would be the next question to follow on. There again the answer is that the present law provides two remedies for an aggrieved person whose contract has been broken by a workman, and those are damages and specific relief. Now, although the law does provide these two remedies, namely, damages and specific performance wherever there is a civil wrong, there is one provision which applies particularly to contracts of service. Whenever a man breaks a contract of service all that the aggrieved party is entitled to is damages ; he can never seek specific relief, and the court can never give relief whereby it can compel a man to perform the contract of service which he has entered upon. All that the aggrieved party would be entitled to is damages. Sir, that is the position as far as breach of contract of service is concerned as a civil wrong. For this civil wrong the employer can get nothing more than damages.
Looking at this breach of contract of service as a crime, the question is : Is it a crime ? What has been the provision of the Indian law so far as breach of contract of service is concerned ? Sir, it is necessary, in the interest of clarification, to give to the House a little bit of history as to how this matter has been treated by our Indian law. The Indian law which first dealt with breach of contract of service was Act XIII of 1859 ; it was called the Workmen’s Breach of Contract Act. This was passed in 1859, soon after the Mutiny or during the course of the Mutiny. I shall presently give to the House the reasons why this legislation was passed. Then, there