THE WAR INJURIES (COMPENSATION INSURANCE) BILL 71
disturbed areas may remain steady at that work. From both these points of view the Government of India accepted the principle of giving compensation to workmen in place of what was originally thought to be only relief.
On examining the provisions of the War Injuries Ordinance, it was found that at a level of about Rs. 24, the payments made under the War Injuries Ordinance constituted not only relief but also compensation. What is therefore necessary to do is to give the workman drawing a salary above Rs. 24 additional rebate which will make payments made to him amount to compensation; that is to say to supplement what he gets under the ordinance so that what he will get will also amount to compensation. This measure therefore is a measure which is a supplementary measure, which supplements the provisions of War Injuries Ordinance of 1941.
Having explained to the house the main provision, namely of compensation and how the Bill was linked up to the War Injuries Ordinance as well as to the Workmen’s Compensation Act and having explained to the house the reason which led the Government of India to bring in this supplementary legislation, I will proceed to explain the second main provision of the Bill, namely to make the employer liable for such compensation. It might be said that while under the provisions of the War Injuries Ordinance, it was government which was undertaking the liability to pay relief, the Government also should undertake similar liability for making compensation to those to whom this present Bill applies. It is quite obvious that it is not possible for Government to undertake the liability which under the circumstances of the case may almost amount to anything because if India remains as it is, there may be no liability arising out of this. Or, if the situation worsens, the liability may be quite indefinite and having regard to the capacity of the Government of India, it is quite obvious that the Government cannot be asked to undertake such indefinite liability. Secondly, I do not think that much can be made of the fact that Government is not undertaking liability in this matter for it will be realised that whatever amount of compensation the employer may be called upon to pay under the liability which we are imposing upon him, it would no doubt be regarded as an admissible revenue expenditure