Rajya Sabha

November 25, 2014

Debabarata Bandyopadhyay speaks on Labour Laws Amendment Bill, 2011 | Transcript

Debabarata Bandyopadhyay speaks on Labour Laws Amendment Bill, 2011 | Transcript

I oppose the Bill for various reasons. I have some credential in the labour area. As a serving office in the IAS of 36 years I spent in the West Bengal as a Labour Commissioner, at Secretary level and also in the central government as Secretary of Labour for quite some time. So, I think I have some credential to speak about it.

I say very simply this is an anti-labour law and this is draconian in nature. This government’s maha mantra is 3D formula. These 3 Ds are Decontrol, Disinvestment and Deregulation. But the mixed economy that was developed under the Rubien economic model has starved the deep roots in our society.

Public generally has some high expectation from the government but this government is bent upon dismantling the structure for the exclusive benefits for the predators of this economy. But they are very clever, not to do so at a stroke they are doing it by a slow process.

An iceberg sir only shows one-tenth of the mass keeping of it under water. Its invisible part of the ice-berg is more dangerous than the visible part. The 9/10th invisible part of the ice-berg tore off 300… of the titanic’s bottom line and resulting in its immediate sinking.

This Bill looks very simple, on the ways it appears to be innocently technical.

Currently all establishments employing more than 90% have to give return regularly about employment or every other things. This Bill wants to substitute the word nineteen by a simple word forty. The purpose to give lift to the owners of small establishments. But for the labourers it is highly injurious.

Subject to correction it is estimated at 70% of returns will be exempted; they don’t have to submit a new return. And this establishment employee according to the estimates is 80% of the total work force. Thus to give relief to the owners of the manpower, the bulk of the labour force would lose all legal protection today.

It is ethically wrong and legally injurious to the interest of the working class. The bulk of the economy handed over to a group whose main purpose is only to make money and to order their own nest. This is juridically untenable because the legal protection that the people have for so long would be lost without any alternative legal cover.

Hence I am opposing and make a fervent appeal to the government to withdraw the Bill in the interest of the working class.