z:\ ambedkar\vol-02\vol2-04.indd MK SJ+YS 21-9-2013/YS-8-11-2013 216
216 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi : No ; not taking upon its shoulders collective bargaining, but regulating collective bargaining.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Regulating collective bargaining. I shall be very candid. What is the use of these regulations ? There are heaps of regulations in the Civil Procedure Code. Is the litigant interested in them ? The litigant is interested in the result of his suit. With all the formalities, with all the provisions and procedure, who is to give notice, what is to happen after notice, who is to draft the written statement and all other things—the hungry workman is not interested in them in the least.
The Honourable Mr. K. M. Munshi : Therefore, repeal the Civil Procedure Code ?
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not say anything of the kind. What I am saying is, with all the provisions that they have got, they should have bucked up, they should have had the courage and said “we shall compulsorily arbitrate, whether you agree to it or not”. (Interruption.) It is another matter whether I agree or not. If you had taken up that attitude, I could have certainly understood it, because the position then would have been this, that at the end of 4 months and 25 days you would have been certain of some tangible result.
An Honourable Member : That would have been slavery to the wage earner. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : You have enough, and you need not have been abashed for going a step further in this Bill. (Interruption).
The Honourable the Speaker : Order, order.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : Therefore, Sir, what is all this for ? You have to go through several stages—a Registrar, a Conciliator, and a Board of Conciliators if both parties agree. It is only a case of securing appearances before certain amiable gentlemen who will talk sweetly to different people and bring about probably a good temper, if a hungry man who wants some thing can be said to be in a good temper. I do not see anything in it. This is, in my judgment, absolutely a futility, an utter futility which can have no tangible result at all. The only tangible result of this will be that this delaying process for 4 months and 25 days will disable the worker from going on strike ultimately. Here again, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the contrast that exists between the Bombay Act of 1934 and the present Bill. Sir, when the Bill of 1934 was on the anvil, it was suggested that a strike should be prohibited during the period of conciliation. There was a proposal to that effect. But that proposal was rejected by the Honourable Sir Robert Bell. It was even pressed upon him that if a strike was not prohibited, at least picketing ought to be prohibited, but he refused even to be a party to that. (An Honourable Member : No, no.) As there is a challenge, I will read a portion of his speech. This is what he says on page
180, Vol. XL, of the Bombay Legislative Council Debates :
“I wish to refer to one matter connected with the subject of picketing. In clause 15 you will see that provision is made for preventing picketing