Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
While these considerations have led us to the conclusion that a general extension of the Act is not practicable, they do not preclude a substantial enlargement of the number of persons covered by the Act. In particular, the objections to a wholesale extension cannot be urged against the inclusion of non-hazardous employment of an organised character. Such an extension should involve no serious addition to the burden of administration, while it would have the effect of giving to a large number of persons protection against the results of accidents which, if they are comparatively infrequent, can cause no less distress on this account. Further, the Act at present is not rigidly confined in its scope to those engaged in fully organised branches of industry. It aimed at the inclusion of industries which are more or less organised, but some of the establishments which come within its ambit have little organisation. We consider that a gradual extension in this direction is desirable, particularly where unusual hazards are involved. To sum up, we consider that the method of advance should be to include first workers in organised branches of industry, whether these are hazardous or not, and secondly to extend the Act gradually to workers in less organised employment, beginning with those who are subjected to most risk. The recommendations which follow aim at the inclusion of as many as possible of the first group of workers and of some who fall within the. second group. Thereafter we consider that the powers conferred upon the Government of India in Section 2 (3) of the Act should be used to secure the gradual inclusion of further branches of hazardous employment. The experience so gained should be of assistance in determining, at a later stage, whether further large extensions of the Act are desirable.