z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-04.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 207
ON THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES BILL 207
himself. That was section 491. Then, section 492 covered a case of breach of contract of service at a distant place to which the servant was conveyed at the expense of the master. These were the three provisions that were enacted when the Indian Penal Code came into operation. Now, Sir, what has been the history of these three sections ever since they were enacted? The history is this, that by Act III of 1925 the Central Legislature has repealed section 490 and section 492. Those sections no longer apply, and the breaches of service which were crimes under them are no longer crimes at all. The only section, therefore, that remains is section 491 of the Indian Penal Code. So that, so far as the law now stands in India, the only breach of contract of service that can involve penal consequences, as distinguished from damages, is section 491 ; and I do not think that any member of the House would cavil at this provision if he knows that it is really intended to cover the case of a person who is a helpless person and who cannot look after himself.
Now, Sir, taking stock of all that I have stated so far relating to the legal position involved as a result of breach of contract of service, which, I say, is merely a popular description of that forbidding word “strike”, what is the position ? The position is this. A breach of contract of service is not a crime, and is not punishable under the Indian Law except when the case falls under section 491. That means it is only a civil wrong ; it is not a crime. And, further, it is a civil wrong for which the remedy can only be damages and never a specific performance. I want to emphasise that. Now, the question which I am sure the House would like to consider with all the seriousness that it can command is this : Why is it that the Indian law does not make a breach of contract of service a crime ? And why is it that the Indian law does not provide for a specific performance ? Whatever answer other members of the House would choose to give, my answer is very simple. My answer is this, that the Indian Legislature does not make a breach of contract of service a crime because it thinks that to make it a crime is to compel a man to serve against his will ;
[and making him a slave (Hear, hear.)] To penalise a strike, therefore, I contend, is nothing short of making the worker a slave. For what is slavery ? As defined in the constitution of the United States, slavery is nothing else but involuntary servitude. And this is involuntary servitude. This is contrary to ethics ; this is contrary to jurisprudence. Sir, the framers of the Indian Penal Code were very much concerned, when they drafted the provisions to which I have just referred, namely, sections
490, 491 and 492, as I see from the head-note here ; they evidently had great qualms of conscience, and they were wondering whether they would be right in enacting even the small provisions contained in sections 490,
491 and 492. This is what the framers of the Indian Penal Code said with regard to Chapter XIX, which is headed “Of the Criminal Breach of Contract of Service”: