+MÉ®ú EòÉä<Ç xÉÉäÊ]õºÉ EòÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ ½þè, iÉÉä ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÉä JÉÖnù ºÉÉäSÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB ÊEò +xÉ-+ÉMÉÇäxÉÉ<Vb÷ ºÉèE]õ®ú Eòä ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÒ nÞùʹ]õ EªÉÉ ½þè* <ºÉ Ê´ÉvÉäªÉEò ¨ÉäÆ <xÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä ¶ÉÉÊ¨É±É Eò®úxÉä Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ÊºÉrÉxiÉ °ü{É ¨ÉäÆ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÒ EªÉÉ ºÉÉäSÉ ½þè? ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EòÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ |ÉEòÉ¶É b÷ɱÉxÉÉ SÉÉʽþB* ªÉ½þ xɽþÒÆ ÊEò Ê®ú]õxÉ-Ê®ú{±ÉÉ<Ç Ê¨É±É MɪÉÉ +Éè®ú =ºÉEòÉä +É{ÉxÉä {Égø ÊnùªÉÉ* +É{É ½þ¨É ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä Bx±ÉÉ<]õxÉ Eò®úäÆ, ±ÉäÊEòxÉ +É{ÉxÉä ªÉ½þÉÆ Ê|É{ÉäªÉb÷Ç º{ÉÒSÉ {Égø nùÒ* +É{É =ºÉ IÉäjÉ ºÉä +ÉiÉä ½þèÆ, +É{É +{ÉxÉä +xÉÖ¦É´É Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ¤ÉiÉɪÉäÆ* ½þ¨É ±ÉÉäMÉ +É{É Eòä VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ºÉä ºÉÆiÉÖ¹]õ xɽþÒÆ ½þè, EªÉÉ +É{É +{ÉxÉä VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ºÉä ºÉÆiÉÖ¹]õ ½þèÆ? ´É½þÉÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ´ªÉÊEiÉMÉiÉ YÉÉxÉ ½þ¨É ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ±ÉäÊEòxÉ VÉÉä ¤ÉÉiÉäÆ ªÉ½þÉÆ {É®ú +É<Ç ½þèÆ, =xÉEòä +ÉvÉÉ®ú {É®ú ½þ¨É Eò½þ ºÉEòiÉä ½þèÆ ÊEò ½þ¨É ±ÉÉäMÉ VÉ´ÉÉ¤É ºÉä ºÉÆiÉÖ¹]õ xɽþÒÆ ½þè* ¨ÉèÆ +É{ɺÉä {ÉÚUôxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉÉ ½þÚÆ, +xÉ-+ÉMÉÇäxÉÉ<Vb÷ ºÉèE]õ®ú Eòä ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ Eòä ¤ÉÉ®úä ¨ÉäÆ ºÉ®úEòÉ®ú EªÉÉ ºÉÉäSÉ ®ú½þÒ ½þè? nùںɮúÒ ¤ÉÉiÉ, VÉÉä ±ÉÉäMÉ ºÉä±É®ú Eòä ºÉÉlÉ ºÉ¨ÉÖpù ¨ÉäÆ VÉÉiÉä ½þèÆ, =xÉ ±ÉÉäMÉÉäÆ EòÉä EªÉÉ +É{É ÊºÉrÉxiÉ °ü{É ¨ÉäÆ ºÉÖ®úIÉÉ nùäxÉÉ SÉɽþiÉä ½þèÆ?
MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.C. CHACKO): Kumari Mamata Banerjee has got some doubts. She can raise those doubts after this reply.
SHRI G. VENKATRAMAN TINDIVANAM: I quite agree to the points raised by the hon. Member. But the original Act says like this. We are now amending the original Act only. The sub-Clause (l) is there in the original Act. There, it is defined who is a seaman. It says and I quote:
"Seaman" means a person employed or engaged as a member of the crew of a ship under the Merchant Shipping Act but does not include a master etc."
They have explained the categories.
SHRI NITISH KUMAR (BARH): Do you intend to change the definition of seaman? There is a definition of the seaman. You are amending the Act. Do you propose to change the definition or amend the definition of seaman? That is the question which I am asking now.
SHRI G. VENKATRAMAN TINDIVANAM: I will answer this question.
SHRI G. VENKATRAMAN TINDIVANAM: I will answer your question. Please allow me to answer this question.
The amendment is carried out to the Act. What we are amending is the original Act. Already an existing Act is there. The categories which you are describing are not there in the original Act. That is why, I am reading out the explanation. Sub-Clause (l) says:
"Seaman" means a person employed or engaged as a member of the crew of a ship under the Merchant Shipping Act but does not include a master etc.."
Even there, they want to prohibit certain persons as shipping crew. Therefore, the original Act is there. Now, you are making all these suggestions. You can put them to me and and those will be considered. But I cannot carry this out in this amendment because the original Act is there. The original Act does not contain the matters which you are canvassing now. Therefore, what you have stated will be taken into consideration in future but not now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You can put any number of questions. But you do not say that the Minister's reply is not satisfactory. It was a very exhaustive reply. You put the questions and the Minister will reply.
KUMARI MAMATA BANEREJEE (CALCUTTA SOUTH): Why I am asking this question is because there are lakhs of seamen working under the contractors. There are some seamen who come from unorganised sector. I know about it. Specially, in Calcutta, there is a marine centre. I know about that. All over the country, there are some sea-zone areas. Whenever people go from one area to the other area, there is no communication. Sometimes, if the ships are missing, the family members of the crew eagerly wait for the information as to what happened to the seamen. You can bring forward an amendment. That is all right. But can you not take a suo motu decision on humanitarian grounds? Can you not take a decision saying that there must be a Board so that the family members get at least the information? They should define the category of the seamen who are working under the contractors and who are in the unorganised sector. They are also the people of this country. Sometimes, they do not have jobs. Sometimes, they get the job. In a year, they get job for three months but for nine months they do not get any job. So, please look into the matter carefully. If you have given notice of a written amendment, you cannot change it now. But you can assure the House about it. There must be some suo motu statement, some suo motu decision from the Government saying that the Government can do it on humanitarian grounds to save the lives of the human beings.
MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.C. CHACKO): Mr. Minister, you can answer after all the questions are put.
Yes, Shri P.R. Dasmunsi.
Now, as I understand from the overall approach of the UF Government, their total commitment about their policies and all these things is only outside the Parliament... (Interruptions)... In line of that I am talking. Their total sympathy for the downtrodden, poor, suffering humanity etc., is outside the Parliament.
Sir, for the last 15 years in the inland water system of India -- i) within the territory of India and ii) for the international borders also -the vessels that operate are not only the large ships but there are other vessels also which carry goods, fish including the fish trawlers who go for hunting. Now, taking all these things into account --- I do not know whether you have made any assessment -- whomsoever operate in the vessel and go to the boat, three/fourths of them are still considered to be hired or contracted labour without any social security by the Government or by the association or by the companies who look after them.
Even in his own interpretation, the hon. Minister says that `seamen's definition also excludes the masters'. The masters are not included. All those who go even in the big ship, are not treated as seamen.
Do you therefore feel that the amendment that you are bringing is a comprehensive one? Do you therefore feel that these amendments will satisfy the cause of the people? If not, why are you pressing for these amendments? You come out with comprehensive approach suiting your Government policy. Why are you doing it hurriedly in a piecemeal manner? That is my question to you.
I believe that the present amendment has been brought in relation to the seamen working under the Merchant Shipping Act. If that is so, there are varieties of categories of seamen working with the Government departments, working with many other companies which do not come under the Merchant Shipping Act.
Now, when such a large number of people are there with insecurity of their jobs, what was the need for the Government to come specifically with the piecemeal amendments for the sections of the seamen in the country? That is my first point.
My second point is this. Whether those people who are working under the Government vessels but not on sign-on and sign-off basis. They do not have a CDC but they do work in the vessels and sometimes even in the sea over the vessels. Under such a condition, what is he thinking for them?
Thirdly, there are other categories of seamen working in the Indian Steam Ship Registration Act. There are certain other Registration Acts also. But whether they work in a big ship registered under some other Act or whether they are working under the Government registered vessels owned by the Government departments, their working system and the working conditions are the similar. So, when that is so, why is the Government not considering to bring a comprehensive legislation for all those categories of people working in the vessels and working in the mid-sea?
Fourthly, in the Merchant Shipping Act, those people who are working are all on sign-on and sign-off basis and, thereafter, in a percentage of his period of services he will be away from his job. And, there are certain periods for which he is working... (Interruptions)
I would like to know from the Minister if he could kindly clarify the position whether all categories of people can be brought under one legislative umbrella, so that all kinds of people will be benefited.
SHRI TINDIVANAM G. VENKATRAMAN: I have got all the sympathies for what the Members have expressed. It is not as though inhumanly I have brought this Bill. What we are concerned with is only the Seamen's Provident Fund where certain anomalies have appeared. This is an Act passed in 1966. We had carried out certain amendments to it which were anomalous and it requires to be rectified by way of an amendment. However, I will keep all the points expressed by my learned friends for consideration at a future date. ..(Interruptions)
I have taken into consideration what he has stated. But I cannot put all these things in this Bill. This Act has been there already. Anomalies have appeared in it. Therefore, for the purpose of rectifying them, this Bill has been brought forward. ..(Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.C. CHACKO): All these suggestions will be considered in the future legislation. All the hon. Members may please note that this is a legislation passed by Rajya Sabha. So, the purpose is served by discussing this much.
..(Interruptions)
SHRI P.R. DASMUNSI (HOWRAH): The Minister has given an assurance, Sir.
SHRI TINDIVANAM G. VENKATRAMAN: I said it will be considered. It does not amount to an assurance. It will be considered.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now we are approaching 3.30 p.m. This is Seaman's Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill. Whatever comes under the scope of this Bill only can be considered. All your suggestions will be taken up for future legislation. That is being noted by the Minister.
Anyway, we had a very nice discussion. I thank all the hon. Members for their participation. Let us now take up the motion for consideration of the Bill.
The question is:
"That the Seamen's Provident Fund (Amendment) Bill, 1996, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration"
The motion was adopted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The House shall now take up clause by clause consideration of the Bill.
The question is:
"That clauses 2 to 7 stand part of the Bill."
The motion was adopted.
Clauses 2 to 7 were added to the Bill.
Clause 1
Amendment made:
Page 1, line 4,-
for "1996" substitute "1997" (2)
(Shri Tindivanam G. Venkatraman)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:
"That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The motion was adopted.
Clause 1, as amended, was added to the Bill.
Enacting Formula
Amendment made:
Page 1, line 1,-
for "Forty-seventh" substitute "Forty-eighth" (1)
(Shri Tindivanam G. Venkatraman)
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:
"That the Enacting Formula, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The motion was adopted.
The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill.
The Title was added to the Bill.
SHRI TINDIVANAM G. VENKATRAMAN: I beg to move:
"That the Bill, as amended, be passed."
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:
"That the Bill, as amended, be passed."
The motion was adopted.
MR. CHAIRMAN (SHRI P.C. CHACKO): Now the time is 3.30 p.m. Let us take up Private Members' Business - Bills for introduction.
Shri Salahuddin Owaisi - not present.
Shrimati Bhavna Chikhalia - not present.
Kumari Uma Bharati - not present.
Shrimati Sumitra Mahajan - not present.
Shri Ashok Kumar Pradhan -not present.
Shri Mangal Ram Premi - not present.
Shri G.M. Banatwalla - not present.
... (Interruptions)
KUMARI MAMATA BANERJEE (CALCUTTA SOUTH): Sir, we should send this list to the Guinness Book of World Records.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Item No.14, Shri Sanat Mehta.
[NEXT PAGE]