Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
The only objection to such a step arises from the immense area to be covered. In all districts, except the few that are of industrial importance, cases are uncommon and are likely to remain so for some time to come. An officer situated within the district, if he is willing to give some attention to the subject, should be more effective than a better-qualified Commissioner, who may be situated at a long distance and may be unable to visit the district to decide a case. We are not prepared, therefore, to recommend the adoption of any absolute rule. But we consider it desirable that in every major province, there should be at least one officer who can be regarded as a specialist in the subject. He need not be a whole-time officer, but continuity of tenure is important, and the appointment should not be linked with one in which transfers are frequent. We suggest that he should be made Commissioner for the district or districts of chief industrial importance, and for as many other districts as he can effectively cover. This should leave only the comparatively unimportant areas to less expert officers, who might be enabled to have the assistance of the specialist officer. We note that the Act does not contemplate more than one officer exercising jurisdiction in the same area. It seems to us that, apart from the general desirability of having more than one officer capable of disposing of a particular dispute, the appointment of an additional Commissioner would have other advantages in some areas. For example, if additional Commissioners could be appointed, it would be possible to give a specialist Commissioner general responsibility for a wide area, with power to devolve work in outlying areas as occasion demanded. But whether this proves feasible or not, we are convinced of the desirability of entrusting the working of the Act, as far as possible, to specialist Commissioners.