PART

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON
HISTORI
This Chapter explains
LABOUR
LABOUR
. Labour
through ages
U. Exploitation of labour in the
l. Patterns of labour begimning of modern
IV. Movement from contract to exploitation industrialization
V. Problems. of unorganised status
System (Abolition) Act, labour in India [The Bonded Labour
1976]
1. LABOUR
Labour is an THROUGH AGES
important segment of
ctar', manifestly different fromgeneral
labour is community. Being a 'human
rtant and vocal section of the other factors of
production. As an
community,
rest f the state agencies, social welfare labour has been drawing
organizations, greate
and all other concerned with it, in planners,
the study of labour and its emploverTS
Labour in the ancient problem.
aroduce their means of subsistence. "At a
society.-History
begins when men actually
minimum, this invoives the
p raduction
of food and shelter." Marx
ro argues that "the first historical act is,
therefore, the production of material life." Production is a social enterprise since
it requires co-operation. Men work together to produce the goods and services
necessary for life."
"At the dawn of human history those contradictions did not exist. The
forces of production and the product of labour were communally owned. Since
each member of society produced for himself and for the society as a whole
there were no conflicts of interest between individuals and groups. However
with the emergence of private property, and in particular, private ownership
of the forces of production, the fundamental contradiction of human society

were created. Through its ownership

of the forces of production, a minority is
fruits of production, since one ganup
able to control, command and enjoy the exists between the
at the expense of the other, a conflict of interest
gains who pertorm
of production and the majority
minority-who owns the forces
productive labour."
and kinship
societies, the family
non-literate
small-scale,
n early,
were the basic organizing
principles of social life.
relationship in general a number of kinship
groups such
as lineages
often divided into
Societies were The
common
was
ancestor. tamily
descended from a
which were groups groups were rsponsible
kinship relationships. Kinship lineage
embedded in a web of services. For exanple, a
and
important goods
tor the production of with Heald R.M.
d. 1980,
Harlanbos

Themes and Perspective"

by M.
Sociology,
p. 535.
2. lbid.
(1
 ON LABOUR
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
2

which were united by a network of mutu.!

might own agricultural land w a s insulted o r inuir,
individiial
cases if an
and obligations. In s o m e to call upon the sune
had a right
s o m e o n e trom
outside the group, he
or revenge. Many
areas of indivd..
lua
members of his group to seek reparation
status as a kinsman. For example, as Unr
an

behaviour were shaped by his of his nephir-.

obligation to be involved with aspects
he might have binding nieces and nephe.
and be responsible for the welfare of his
socialization
of family and kinsh
should their father die. "Something of the importance
by the tolluwi
scale societies is illustrated
relationship in many small "What is a Man na
statement bv a Pomo Indian of Northern California,
than bug crOSStr,
that
is nothing. Without his fanmily he is of less importance
the family is not so
importa
the trail. In the white w a y s of doing things justic
of protecting vou, the courts give you
The police and soldiers take care the
the courts give you justice, scho
the post office carries messages for you, children, it you die, br
teaches vou. Evervthing is taken care of,
e v e n your

with us the family must do all that."s

in small scale, agrarian soCiety seerne
This brief description of the family
differences between the family iin
of the more important
to highlight s o m e
in industrial society.
kinship based agrariansociety and the family
sometimes known as the 'Classie
A second form of pre-industrial family,
traditional peasant societies. "As in kinshi
extended family is found in some
life. But in this case, the basic unit is the
based societies, kinship ties dominate Within the familv, soca
extended family, rather than wider kinship grouping.
economic roles are welded together; being ascribed by fami
status
and
the father-son relationship is also that ot
membership. On the farm, decision, for example
owner takes all important
owner-employee. The father
directs the activities of all other members of the
whether to sell cattle, and
the family and director of the firm. Typically
extended family. He is head of and children
and consist of the male head, his wife
the classic extended family
he has inherited the farm and any unmarried
his aging parents from whom
work as 'productive unit, producing the
brothers and sisters. Together they
survival."
goods necessary for the family's

Labour in the middle ages

ancient, agrarian society was therefore in
a beter
Thus labourer in the
of teudal
position. However, during the middle ages, due to the emergence
land was
system, the condition of labour deteriorated. Most of the agricultural
Owned by feudal lords. Landless labourers, known as serfs, were forced td
work for the land owning nobility in order to gain a livelihood. The labouro
the subject class took on the character of 'forced labour Since its member
lacked the necessary means to produce for themselves, they were forcea
tor in the hands of feualat
ork others. Ownershipof the
forces of production
OTds, provided the basis for ruling class dominance and control of lado
A eudal structure of society seemed to have prevailed in vairious
nres including India in the medieval period. The economies ot these tnes
LOunes were bacod
countries based on feudal
ownership, which was
by a
Specitic form of the
exploitation of the peasants, artisans. characic
 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABOUR
1, EXPLOITATION OF wORKERS IN THE BEGINNING Or
ion
Exploitatio
INDUSTRIALIZATIONof the industrialization may
of the workers in the beginnin
arized under the following
heads
(i) Loss of freedom to work
(i) Indifferent attitude of theindependently
(ii) Unfair contract of employer
employment
(iv) Inhuman conditions at the work
)
place
Loss of freedom to work independently.-A great historic event taat
event that
18pendently.-A great historic
took place in Great Britain inin 18th century was the advent of "industrial
ok place in oreat
Industrial revolution that took place in Great Britain soon spread
e v o l u t i o n "

its
neighbouring States and by the end of nineteenth century covered most
to
of the globe. Newly invented machines that caused
rt of Istrial revolution
re caused mass production of goods in short period of time and provided
manki
kind with material comforts, brought within its wake a number of
r the workers also. Independence of labourer was lost as soon as
problems for
he tool in his hand was replaced by the machine. It is rightly said that as
the
as tool
sOon as tool was taken away from the hands of a worker, he was tied to the
Thus
machine and became ittle more than a cog in big machine of production.
with his
with the industrialization the worker lost his freedom to work alone machine.
tool and found himself tied to the machine and to the owner of the
i) Indifferent attitude of the employer.-Besides losing his freedom to
of
work independently with his tools, workers in the early phase
who as
industrialization had to sutter the indifferent attitude of his employer
than about
the industries were concerned more about the profits
the owner of human factor in the
which otherwise is an important
labour welfare industrialization owners of the
In fact, with advent of modern
production. who were industrialists and
as a new class of employers
industries emerged to
interest was to maximize their profits. The employer belonging
whose main As earlier a worker
different from the traditional employer.
new class
was
direct and immediate control
of the traditional employer
worked under the but
servant relationship,
knew under a traditional master
whom he personally for whom he
worked in the industry he seldom saw his employer who
when he between the employer
In modern industrialization
toiled day and night. worker were the managers,
and supervisor
the industry and the work
is the owner of to and supervise the
the industry manage
o w n e r of
kind of employer
employed by the Brown explains this
workers. EH Phelps
done by his
as follows what happens
employeerelationship will have worked if
we contrast
this a man."
"We can see how seen around, hardly
known as

is remote, little
when the employer their employees
workers worked for
i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n the In fact,
In fact, with their employers.
appointed by and the workers
under the control
of management the industries
o w n e r of "As
who is the of management.
between the employer there stood the wall like rent,
industries more

who worked in
those
from ownership,
profits seemed there-that the
became separated notions
the two
management man." Put together Brown Ed. 1965, p.
God's gift to sleeping Relations" by
EH Phelps
Industrial
British
"The Growth of
5
106.
 PERSPECTIVES
ON LABOUH

HISTORICAL

her man's
to anothe
end, and that
at this en
means

sse
u ed
as a
of the product
and what appear is
is being out
as possible the owner of
rock of Marxism. As the
1Workman

much
take as
and the.
is to exploitation evels, from the general manager
lev
of
definition at various
ppointed
managerS
foreman to get the
work done by the workers, the
industries the
Work managerdown to as these managers
and supervisors who
rsened
worse

of the
workers
more about the result as their .

conditions were concerned

were employees had their own jobs to keep
themselves
promotions were depended upon the outputs. They looked for promotion
was expected; they
what showing
told and costs down "
and had been their success in keeping output up
and would be
judged by maximum profits to the
contract of employment.-To ensure
(ii) Unfair made the workers to work
for unduly
the industries management
oWners of for extremely low wages, in
hours without any interval for rest,
long
conditions. In short, industrial
worker in the beginning of
unhvgienic working machine has no
reduced to lifeless machine as a
industrialization was himself for wages or
intervals for rest and makes no demand
fixed working hours, no
conditions. To make the matter worse
the laissez-faire doctrine
hvgienic working
of modern industrialization as
that prevailed in the state in the beginning
non-interference of the State in the economic affairs
of the state
advocates the
enabled the emplovers to employ the workers on such terms of employment
to the industrial
which favoured the employers to the great disadvantage
at their
Worker. Thus the employers were free to draft contracts of employment
whims and fancies without any check by the State and the
worker was either
industrializatiorn
to accept them as such or to starve. Thus in the beginning of
freedom of
to achieve maximum profits by the owners of the industries,
contract in competitive market and policy of non-interference, by the laissez-faire
orm of state weaved a of exploitation for the industrial worker. As
pattern
Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences states
"At the beginning of nineteenth century the individual determined
the law of industry for his particular industry subject only to the vague
control of the competitive system."
(iv) Inhuman conditions at the work place.-In the early phase of
industrial revolution labour as the human factor in the production suffered
exploitation at the hands of the newly emerged class of employers who as the
owners of the newly set up industries were concerned with their profits only
in a competitive market and completely ignored value of the human factor in
the production of goods.° Robert Owen, a
factory owner himself who improved
the conditions in his own factory was struck
work in other factories pleaded to the other
by the inhuman conditions of
employers also to introduce
reforms in their factories also. In a lecture delivered to Manchester audience
of factory superintendents, he said as follows
"Will you continue to
best devised mechanism of expend large sums of money to secure the
wood,
repair..but not atford some of brass, iron; and retain it in necessary
or

your attention..improve your living

6. Tbid., pPp. 109-10.

7.
8.
Encyclopaedia
"Labour
of Social
Sciences, Vol.
in America" by Faulner VII-VII, p. 710.
U. Harold & Star M
 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABOUR
machine.
D.N. Pritt also gives the
ization
i n d u s t r i a l i z a

took on account of the

eaccount the hcavy
heavy toll that the modern
tolltha
the
human life andd limb as follows
"Injuries to workers
quent and far
frequent tat work-industrial
work-industrial
far more
more
d
damaging, than
injuries are far
injuries
more
in inausey most people not
realise, the public is shocked
disasters, particularly in mines, from time aE to time
of death, suttering and but it is scarcely aware of the by
hardship caused by day endie
Accidents at the work
place without
to day accidenes
to the worke ker from the any insurance
cover or compen ation
employer
T1os were weighed clearly added to the misery of the t workers and the
industrializat
against
zation. The worker was not the workers in the early phase
mlover unless he able to recover insurance cover trom
proved that the accident any in
nplover
of emplover and not due to his occurred due to the
negligence
nor due to negigene
nan. The
magnitude of the negligence of his
of the worker can be fellow
orkm a

the fact that the workers suffered exploitation gauged

thatat cast a darker shadow even injuries as he was aware ot the risk
than injuries over the life
earner
-the risk of being out of work.? of the wage
One of the worst teature of
early factory labour was the long working
hours. Therefore, the men and women of
Lancashire and
mechanical power inhuman, that it disregarded all Yorkshire their
found new
instincts and
eone sibilities, that it brought into their lives an inexorable
s
force, destroying and
scattering
c their customs, their
traditions, their ties of family and home, their
dignity and character as men and women.3
Children in particular was the worst affected part of labour force in the
parly phase of industrialization. As children provided not only cheap labour
hut were also too young arnd defenceless that they could raise no voice
against
their exploitation. They were taken into the mills by hundreds and thousands
and at all ages even those of five and six years of age. These children were
kept at work on their toes for anything from 12 to 14 hours a day, with only
one hour for "dinner. They toiled in over heated and crowded workroom,
ften so thick to see across the room." The report of Dr. Villerm'e submitted
o the Institute de France, in 1840 gives shocking but accurate picture of things
hat were happening in the nineteenth century in all the factories affected by
ndustrial revolution, in the following words
"A crowd of thin, emaciated children can be seen, covered in rags,

barefooted to mullhouse, in rain, and mud, carrying in their hands,

going made waterproof, by oil falling
and when it is raining in their garments,
bread which is to be served them for
from the machine, the morsel of

International Labour
9. "Labour faces the new Age" A Workers Education Manual,
Office, Geneva, 1965.
of the Indian Legal System", 1983,
at "Conference on the reform
0. "Working Paper" New Delhi, p. 1.
Indian Law Institute, EH Phelps Brown Ed. 1965, pp.
British Industrial Relations" by
1. "The Growth of
76-77.
2. Ibid, p. 81.
6, p. 25.
3. Supra Note 12
 LABOUR
PERSPECTIVES
ON
HISTORICAL

6
return to their homes. industrialal revolutio
food until they what the
magination
to see
his hands, he becam
much from
It does not take lost the
did to the workers. As soon as tool
was
taken away
he had freedon
of production, owner of the
the ow
little more than a cog in big m a c h i n e machine
and to
tied to the human Deng
was now a
to work alone, he
as
certain dignity
m a c h i n e . In this chain
he had lost a

in India during thei.

British Policy towards labour started by British
that time
industrialization in India was
in India at were
Modern the
industries
industries
colonial rule in India. Almost all foreigners. nese
owned by e v e n for
the
capital and w e r e were nsuficlent
Stdrted by foreign
Cpioyed
the workers
wages
which
on meagre hours,
were
w
no
fixed
British
working working
the
sustenance the workers. here
of
woes of
the
workers

Adding to the plight of

ons
were unhvgienic.
turned a blind eye tO the
India at that time m e n t i o n e d the modem
orernment that ruled already been
workers in India. As has therefore British
ndustrial the Britishers and
started by
naustrialization in India was relation between
the employers and
intervened in the industrial who Used to be the
GOvenment the employers
to extend the support to
workers only
Britishers in India by the British
In the Royal Commission was appointed labour in lndia. n the
1929
conditions of
GOvernment to enquire into the working
for the
course of its inquiries, this Commission
held in all 128 public sittings
in lndia. About the plight
examinations of witnesses and 71 private sessions,
of the workers in the industries in India under
British Government, Report of
follows
the Royal Commission on Labour records as
"In India nearly the whole mass of industrial labour is illiterate, a
state of affairs which is unknown in any other country of industrial
importance. It is almost impossible to overestimate the consequences of
this disability, which are obvious in wages, in health, in productivity, in
organization and in several other directions."
About the plight of child workers in Bidi' factories the Report of the
Royal Commission on Labour in India quotes as follows
"Workers as
young as five years of age may be found in
these places working without some of
and often for 12 or 13 hours
adequate meal intervals or weekly rest days,
of those tenderest
daily, tor sum as low as 2 annas in the cases
years".
Promising Indian workers a better future, the
in the introduction of its
Report as follows Royal Commission declared
India has the right to
recommendations framed expect from us, not aseries of
in the
considerable programme for the
light of the
existing crisis, but a
ovDerience gives the hope
the
us
that development
in
of labour policy. Our
workers will
receive India of the
an
future the welfare
ofincreasing
generous actio
on on the
part all measure of wise
who can
or
Tu. PATTERN OF influence theirthought
lives.
and or
Asis
is explaine.
EXPLOITATION
explained in the beginning OF
chapter, WORKERS
15. Ibia., P. 9. of this
in the
early phase
early
phase of
 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABOUR
irialization an industrial worker had almost lost his an
induThe factors that weaved the dig the
of industrial
ber be
ker may summarised he
summarised under pattern
pattern of exploitation o

the eads as follows

1. Doctrine of following, head
2. Freedom of contract Laissez-faire
and Doctrine of hire and Jire
3. Doctrine of
conspiracy and Combination Acts
Doctrine ot Laissez-faire
1.
Moderm industrialization occurred in 18th ury, the time when the
doctrine of laissez-faire prevailed in
the State. According to laissez-faire doctrine
perform only primary function, i.e,,protection of its citizen
State has to the
theternal aggression and internal disturbance and maintenance of law and
fro the society and not to interfere in
onder the economic or other pri
orivate attairs
its
eitizens. The relationship between industrialists as employers with their
was held to be a private economic
W o r k e r s

affair between the industrialists

their workers and due to the prevalence of laissez-faire doctrine. State did
amake any interferen ce in such relationship in the beginning of the
not
trialization. In tact, laissez-faire doctrine gives rise to unrestrained
i n d u s t r i a l i z a

onomic
activity in the State.
The doctrine of laissez-faire grew up and flourished in the nineteenth
century with the advent of modern industrialization, first, as a reaction
a0ainst old system of state and guild regulation that had become
aga
obstructive and oppressive as a result of the changing methods of
production; and secondly, as the outcome of a feeling that the technical
Dowers of production available for man's use would be most rapidly and
pov

thoroughly developed if individuals were left as free as possible to make

use of them."i6

Due to the policy of non-intervention ádopted by the laissez-faire State

industrialists as the employers were free to employ the workers on any
the
without any interference by the State. Opposed to labour
terms of employment
welfare legislations
enacted by 20thcentury welfare State to regulate employerto
due
the State in the beginning of industrialization
employee relations, and allowed the
did not interfere in these matters
doctrine
laissez-faire freedom to draft any kind of
contract between

employers to enjoy complete between two unequal

their employees. This freedom of contract was
them and industrialist who now
hand there were the wealthy, powerful
parties. If on one were poor and
on the other hand,
class of employers, the employers of
emerged as the
new
The industrialists who were
workers.
powerless industrial the workers on the
terms
the freedom to employ
industrial workers enjoyed their freedom by the
other kind of check upon
without any legislative
or any workers on terms
industrialist, as employers employed
State. Resultantly, the with total disregard
them maximum profits,
which suited them best,
ensuring low wages, with long
on extremely
workers who were employed industrial law in
the
to interests of interval for rest. n fact,
was one
without any the State, but
Working hours was not one created by
with regard
nineteenth century wanted it to be
Deginning of as an employer to
differed from industry
industrialist
individual
Which the industrial law
the industrialist
to his industry.
As a consequence, differences in
the nature of
the
upon
industry depending 19.
Sciences, Vol. IX, p.
of Social
F n c y c l o p a e d i a
 LABOUA
PERSPECTIVES
ON

of kind
heart,
HISTORICAL

was
industry
of the upon his
il the
o w n e r

of
employment rken
enample,
c o n t r a c t

free to iimpose any

For of he w a s int
ferred such g
terms
terms
r e e dy
of contract of empioyment whichtely
and a s the
employer.
less
harsh

industrialist
was
y

was
com. e pee
imposed therefore,
the
if, worker,
Wheeas

c o n t r c t ,
he
peterr
workers.,
I n d u s t r i a l

industries
who
only
ploye em
of
to
the poor of ewly
set up
were
d e t e r m i n e d
not
by th the
by the competiti
harshest o W n e r s

of the ot
employment
time
mercy contract of the
the of but most never
allowed
The
terms
employers, market CO
now individual
competitive which
nature
of the
Whereas
the truth
is that a
contract of
employment
Coul
profit ar
WE

also. to draft a industry

to earn
market employers the
never sn en
ran

the
kindest of the workers as every
employer
the employers
in
to the profits work
be fair
or just eam
maximum
made their
ker u
greed to they
Dictated bv their
workers. On the contrary for rest and pai Va
of their
intervals
welfare without

monev on
to sunset of policy e
from sunrise in the
name

to work
continuously
Whereas the State did not ma W
low wages. doctrine of laissez-jaire
them extremely of Kather in the name o
due to the prevalence workers.
non-intervention

the interest of the onlooker and

intervention to protect the role of passive
anv the State piayed c o n t i n u e d at
the hands oi
the doctrine
of laissez-faire workers e
of the poor
and powerless of the newly set un
the exploitation were the
owners

employers who 2
wealthy and powerful Sciences states
industries. As Encyclopaedia of Social
the individual determined
nineteenth century
"At the beginning of subject only to the vague
his particular industry
the law of industry for 17

control of the competitive system.

caused exploitation of industrial workers in
Thus doctrine of laissez-faire
as unrestricted market economy
modern industrialization
the beginning of
industrialist to become richer
and made the industrial workers
helped the rich the growth in
to suffer in utter poverty. "By
the end of the nineteenth century
the economic power of the
the scale of business organization was weakening
consumer, whereas the growth
of democracy was adding to his political power
This situation led inevitably to a demand that political power should be applied
to positive economic ends-which was precisely what the advocates of
laissez-faire had been above all else concerned to deny. Modern large scale
industrialism irretrievably destroyed the theoretical basis of laissez-fuire doctrine
as well as its political practicability. The separation between economics and
politics on which the doctrine of laissez-yfaire"rested is an anachronism in the
present day world. The use of political power for economic ends is universal:
and although this does not settle the
is the better system, it does make it
question whether socialism or capitalism
on the doctrine of
impossible to rest the case of capitalism
laissez-faire. For
individualism and free competition."8 laissez-faire
is essentially a doctrine ot

The doctrine of
laissez-faire lost its
welfare State in the 20th century. As a welfare significance
with the emergence
state not only
or
function of maintaininglaw and order in tne performs
from external the society and
takes care of health,aggression but also ensures protecting its c1tizen
welfare of its citizen. A
and social education of its citizens and welfare state
justice the
in
society.
It is strives to achieve
econou
17. Supra Note
6.
usually
said that a welfare
state takes Cal
18.
Encyclopaedia of Social
Sciences, Vol. IX, pp. 19-20
 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LABOUR
of its citizens tnom cradle to
intervention almost everyTave.
in grave. As in a welfare State there is State
weltare ta
sle. 1he State mterteres of lives of its people for the
even in the
wellire or
peate with the sole objective of economic atfairs taking
Pl
ployee relations ane no
e m p l o v e r e ensuring
nsiring socio-econom
socio-economy justice to all. Thus
omplovers ana longer private economic affairs betwee
workers
în weltare State. An
a
ontract ot
emplovment in any employer
is no
manner that suited him best ignoring
completel
the interest
ot the other
weltan State ensures that the party to the contractct, ie., the worker A
wealthy and powerful not
trarily dratt such contract of employers do
intenest ot poor and
powerless employment which are unjustly again the
workers. To restrain the ployers from dratting
untair andand unjust contracts of empl
Tarious labos our laws. Under employment, the welfare State has enactecd
these laws or
islations to regulate the industrial relations
legis
arbitraryy to the enacting labour
between the employers
arkers by fixng maxmun daily working hours, interval for rest, weekiyand
halidavs. tiving minimum wages for the welfare of the workers, the earlier
Statete under the intluence of the
doctrine of the laissez-faire did not enact any
cch labour legislations to regulate the industrial relations between the
omplovers and workers for the welfare of the workers.

2Freedom of contract and Doctrine of hire and fire

The owners ot the industries who were the
employers of the workers
Pmploved in those industries enjoyed freedom of contract due to the policy of
non-intervention due to the prevalence of doctrine of laissez-faire at that time.
The newly emerged class of employers who were the owners of newly set up
industries driven by the urge to maximise their profits totally disregarded the
interests of workers who were employed in their industries. Succumbing to
their good to max1mise their profits, they employed the workers in those
industries at extremely low wages with long working hours without intervals
industrialists always reserved
for rest. In the name of freedom of contract those
at any time they like. The
their right to dismiss or discharge their workers
their employees without
employers exercised the right to dismiss discharge
or

opportunity to be heard. Thus any attempt

on
giving them any reason or any their voice against such harsh terms of
contract
the part of workers to raise from their
the employers by discharging them
were thwarted immediately by even the
absence of the concept of social justice
services. In such case in the those dismissals and
the employers justified
law helped the employers
as
accordance with
exercised this power in
discharges as they
asserted that they with them. Thus
which the workers have entered into
the terms of contract contracts of
themselves by the terms of legally binding workers as a
workers bound Whereas in reality the
were parties.
employments of
which they to the other party,
i.e., the
was not equal
contract of employment two unequal
party to the of employment were between

harsh terms of which

those contracts
employer. In fact, contracts were actually
the traps, the the
parties. These unjust also worked against
The legal justice
workers legally. of contract
used to bind the etfect to the terms
bound to give
the Courts were or arbitrary they may
Workers as e v e n howsoever harsh
and the workers, the terms of the
between employer were bound by
as well as
employers State did not
be. As both the
workers
doctrine of laissez-faire the
Due to the were arbitrary
Contract of
employment. contract of employment
of the
terms
even
when the
Interfere
 ON LABOUR
PERSPECTIVES

HISTORICAL

10 unconscionable, tilting highly in the

workers. Thus
1fav
Stlegalsituat
lacie the
and were prima disadvantage
of
or unjust

the emplorers
to the great
the name
of treedom
o t contract.
h usti
that exist in the welfare
in
social justice

iledformby
s i t u a t i o n
prevailed upon
to the present contract
of employer is cur

Isexactl opposite freedom of protect the

State. Because todav the
enacted by the state
tO A"eres S
number of labour
legislations example, Factories Act,
soCially and
economically
weak
workers. For

working
hours, intervals
ad for 1948
a s wel1 as weekly term of contract which
utsS
India fines the daily
Well as for children
and
adolescents.

than prescribed
Any
Factories Act, 1948 iis unlawf
under
ane
inpose
Working hours m o r e Court.
struck down by the
is liable to be
industrial worker suffered in
#h.
ne
that the
short, the greatest loss
industrialization m
in
reedom of contract in the beginning of modern
as the
c o n t r a c t the indus
of the n a m e of
freedom of ustrialis
secunty of his job". In workers in their industries o n such term
employers emploved the res.h
suited them best, Le., they always
which seTve
conditions of emplovment workmen they employed and
the right to dismiss or discharge the
freedom of contract was in fac
exerised it as freely as they could. Thus
fTeedom of the workman, either to work for the employer in manner and
to the job of workm
n
wages, theemplover desired, or to starve. Insecurity
Was unprecedented in the beginning of industrialization. Slaves, artisans wo
were
In much better position as compared to that which the industrial workman
o
that time had. This insecurity of job has been aptly explained by Frederictk
Engels, in the following passage
True, it is only individuals who starve, but what security has the
working-man that it may not be his turm tomorrow? Who assures him
employment, who vouches for it that, it for any reason or no reason his
lord and master
discharges him tomorrow, he can struggle along with
those dependent upon him until he
may find someone else, 'to give him
bread? Who guarantees that
the virtues recommended uprightness, industry, thrift and the rest of
No one. He knows that
by bourgeoisie, are really his road to happiness?
he has
depend upon himself, whether he shall have
something
today and that it does not
knows that every breeze, that something tomorrow. He
blows, every whim of his
bad turn of trade employer, every
may hurl him back into fierce
he had
temporarily saved himself, and in whirlpool from which
impossible which it is hard and
have
to
keep his head above the
water. He
often
may the means of knows that
have tomorrow." living today, it is very he though
uncertain whether he shall
3. Doctrine of
The conditionconspiracy (Combination Acts)
of industrial
of
industrialization, when doctrineworkers worsened further
emerged industrial of
relations. conspiracy started
in the
early phase
Journeymen Tailors of Upholding this doctrine, regulating the newly
indicted for
conspiracyCambridge
to rise Case, in which the King's Bench in Rex V.
conspiracy of any kind iswages, held: Journeymen Tailors were
"a their
they conspired
not
conspired tomight have been iliegal although the
do it" lawful, or any of matter about whici
them to do, if
they hau
 11
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES ON LAROUR

According to the doctrine of conspiracy under common law, two or more

persons coula not combine to do what they could legally do as individuals.
in 1786, five
Similarly, bookbinders convicted of conspiracy leading o
were
strike to reduce the hours of labour from twelve to eleven. Scared by French
Revolution the GOverning class of Great Britain prohibited the working clas7
combinations in textile industries and mining areas rigidly by passingg
rigidly
Combination Acts, 1799 and 1800. These Acts forbade the formation of unions.
Thus workers in the newly set up industries
suffered without
their grievances With their fellow workmen, as this was consideredsharing ilegal Oin
the early phase of industrialization under Combination Acts, 1799 and 1800
The cruel restrictions on the workmen, under Combination Acts, 1799 and
1800 made them exceedingly restive and they formed unions and went in tor
collective action despite all the prohibitions against
discriminatory Acts. 1 hen
in 1824 with the efforts of Francis Place and
Joseph Hume, these discriminatory
Combinations Acts were repealed by Combination Act, 1824. The Combination
Act, 1824 legitimised the combination of
employees. This Act in fact was death
knell for doctrine of conspiracy of common law that had caused
to the workers. But this Act was soon
great injustice
replaced by another Act next named
Combination Act of 1825, in which the great liberties that wereyear, assured to
workmen in the Combination Act of 1824, were curtailed to some extent. This
Act legalised the union of workers, and strikes however it declared
such strikes
illegal that were intended to oppress the employer. Despite these Acts passed
in the first quarter of the nineteenth
century, discrimination against workmen
continued, as the statutes and the common law were not impartially applied
to the employers and his workmen. For
instance, employers could be punished
for breach of contract by civil suit only;
employees who violated a conract
were punished criminals and could be imprisoned for three months even
as
the statutes passed in the early
stages of industrialization oppressed
oppressed the
workmen and benefited the employers.