884 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES
302
*** Training Indians in Labour Welfare in** United Kingdom
@ 939. Mr. Amarendra Nath Chattopadhyaya : Will the Honourable the Labour Member please state if it is a fact that the Labour Department is going to send a considerable number of men for training in labour welfare to the U. K. ? If so, why Government cannot train these people in India ? What would be the cost of their training scheme ? What would be the minimum qualification required of such trainees ?
The Honourable Dr. B. R. Ambedkar : (a) It is proposed to send in the first instance, three batches of 20 officers each, of whom about 12 will be officers of the Central Government and 8 of Provincial Governments and States. Financial sanction has been accorded to the sending of 12 Central Government officers with the first batch of trainees.
In the initial stages the training and experience necessary for labour administration in the immediate post-war period cannot be acquired in India except by a lengthy process of trial and error. It is therefore, necessary to take advantages of the experience and practice of other more highly industrialised countries like the United Kingdom.
The cost to the Central Government is estimated at Rupees one lakh for the nominees in the first batch. The Provincial Governments and States will bear the charges in respect of their nominees.
The minimum qualifications are that the officers should be under Government employment or designated to fill posts under Government and should have experience of welfare work or administration of labour legislation. Officers having high educational qualification will be given preference.
303
† Factory Inspectors and Labour Welfare Officers in Delhi Province
- Shrimati K. Radha Bai Subbarayan : Will the Honourable the Labour Member please state :
(a) the number of Factory Inspectors and Labour Welfare Officers in the Delhi Province, and if they include women ;
- Legislative Assembly Debates (Central), Vol. II of 1945, 13th March 1945, pp. 1409-10.
† Ibid, p. 1422.
@ Answer to this question laid on the table, the questioner being absent.