NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
W(B)L 51-7406
was being proposed did not provide any form
of machinery for resolving disputes.
5. It is perhaps conceivable that a strike for other than an industrial, purpose might be instigated in a single essential service (although widespread strikes for political purposes in the pattern of 1967 would seem more likely), and that in such a case the provisions of Section 3 might be invoked. But I suggest that in such a case the instigators will have made good use of some genuine industrial issue or grievance to cloak their political purpose and that to ban the strike, without effective arrangements for dealing with the underlying grievances, would contribute little to industrial peace and could greatly reduce public support for the government's action. In India where parallel provisions are in force (the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968) there already exists in the essential services joint consultative machinery, in some cases compulsory arbitration, and a firmly established tradition of trade union representation and collective bargaining; notwithstanding this, an
assurance was given by the Government of India
when this list was debated that modified and improved negotiating and
arbitration machinery would be introduced by
legislation.
6. In addition, I am advised that the amending legislation as drafted has certain imperfections which call for examination.
(a) Section 3(5). The insertion of the
words 'take part in" in line 2 of this sub-section would seem to have little or no practical effect in relation to a strike in view of the proviso to this sub-section. (b) New Section 3A. As at present
worded, the powers of the Governor in Council seem to be confined to
strikes which have already started, and do not extend to dealing with threatened strikes. In the absence
of the notices referred to at paragraph 2 above, workers would not be aware in many cases until already
/ on strike