THE FACTORIES (SECOND AMENDMENT) BILL 269
more or less as they were in the original Bill and call for no comment. Sir, I move.
Mr. Deputy President (Mr. Akhil Chandara Datta): Motion moved.
“ That the Bill further to amend the Factories Act, 1934, as reported by the Select Committee, be taken into consideration.”
- The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : I do not think it is necessary for me to deal with each and every point that has been raised by Honourable Members who have spoken on this motion, particularly because I find that every point which has been made by honourable Members is covered by an amendment. Consequently there will be a duplication of debate, which I do not propose to undertake. I will say what I have to say on the various points when the appropriate amendments are moved.
† The Honourable Dr. B.R. Ambedkar : Sir, I am afraid it is not possible for me to accept either of the amendments which have been proposed by Mr. Joshi or Prof. Ranga. I quite understand that a workman who has put in the requisite amount of service should be entitled to get his holidays irrespective of the consideration as to whether he has served one employer or more than one employer. But two facts have to be taken into consideration. The first is the question of administrative feasibility. I am quite satisfied that unless we have a sort of an insurance system where the payments to be made by employers are de-personalised and fastened upon some fund, it would not be possible to work the provisions, if I were to accept the amendments proposed by my Honourable friends. If, for instance, a scheme of health insurance were to come into operation, than we would have the basis of a system of cards, stamps and the other administrative machinery for insurance purposes, and then an amendment of the sort which has been moved would be possible to accept. But for the present, I am sorry to say that I cannot see any way to accept this amendment.
- Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. III, 29th March 1945, p. 2276.
† Ibid., p. 2280.