204 LABOUR IN MADRAS This is the first point which I respectfully submit for consideration to the Joint Committee. I would strongly urge that the whole of No. 25 of the Pro vincial subjects (Functions Report, p. 26) should be transferred. Of the seven items included in No. 25, (a) (b) (@) (d) are made “subject to Indian legislation": while I see the point of (a) factories, (c) electricity, and (d) boilers being made subject to Indian Legislation for the sake of obtaining uniformity, I fail to see why (b) settlement of labour disputes should be so treated. This is actually to sow the seed of future discord, and I think it my duty to strike a note of warning. Trade Unionism is bound to grow fast in India ; the settlement of labour disputes will be claimed as one of their rights by the Trade Unions on behalf of the labourer, and if it is in the hand of Government, it will bring the Unions into conflict with Government and will inevitably lead the labourers to regard the Government as on the side of the employers. The Government should limit its work to the creation of permanent Boards of Arbitration to which labour disputes can be referred, on lines similar to a Labour Board suggested by some of us last October for Madras. Presently we shall require in India some kind of legislation for the recognition of Trade Unions and other labour organisations. Why should a start not be made now, by transferring the whole of item No. 25 and making the popular half of the provincial diarchical government responsible for the entire subject of the development of industries—which is recommended to be a transferred subject (with the exception of large industries claimed by the Government of India)—and the
