Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
The system here recommended has already been tried in a few Indian factories and big industrial enterprises, and, where the right type of officer has been employed, it has generally met with conspicuous success. In one case, however, the attempt to introduce it was defeated by the workers themselves. The account of this attempt furnished to us by the employers leaves no doubt that the jobbers were responsible for the workers' opposition; and no doubt in many cases it will be extremely difficult to defeat the jobbers' machinations. Were it not for this difficulty and the fear of trouble, more persistent endeavours in this direction would doubtless have been made by many employers. Associations of employers could with advantage consider and determine upon a common policy in an attempt to stamp out bribery. We are satisfied, however, as are the employers who made the experiment referred to. that the method is bound to be of material and permanent benefit to labour, once the initial difficulty has been overcome. Where a union is in existence, its co-operation should be sought and should generally be available, but in some cases the jobbers' influence is potent even within the union. Where it is not possible to employ a whole-time labour officer, the manager or some responsible officer should retain complete control of engagements and dismissals. This, of course, is only possible where the controlling officers are prepared to keep the same hours as the workers—a requirement which is not the invariable rule in one big industrial centre.