171 
The Bombay Strike Enquiry Committee, 1928-29, discussing a new Standing Order 
proposed by the Millowners on the subject observed that ‘ there can be no doubt that 
the practice is liable to considerable abuse, and it has often given rise to industrial unrest. 
The weaver constantly feels that he has been unjustly penalised for damage caused 
‘rom reasons which were beyond his control, and asserts that his protests are not heeded. 
There may be no real attempt to determine whether pieces of cloth have been spoilt 
owing to the worker’s negligence, or onaccount of defective machinery, bad raw material 
or carelessness in some other department ; and there is a natural tendency for employers 
to decide such cases in their favour. The worker may not be able to dispose of the 
spoilt or damaged material except at a considerable loss, and the incidence of the fine 
thus inflicted on him may be very heavy. No doubt there may be some cases where 
weavers benefit by getting slightly damaged cloth, which they can keep for their own 
use or dispose of at a profit ; but we think that the objections to the practice outweigh 
its utility 7’. The Committee, on the other hand, held that “it would be clearly unrea- 
sonable for the employer not to have power to recover compensation for damage caused 
by the negligence of a weaver, by fine or deduction from his wages”. In conclusion, 
Shey tentatively suggested the addition of a rule on the following lines to the Standing 
Orders proposed by the Bombay Millowners’ Association :— 
“ The Company shall not be entitled to debit a weaver’s wages with the cost of 
sloth damaged by his negligence, unless he elects to take it over on those terms. 
Otherwise the Company may deduct from his wages an amount corresponding to 
she estimated loss caused to it by such negligence, provided that, if the proposed 
deduction exceeds the sum of Rs. or the weaver disputes the damage being 
due to his negligence, the deduction shall not be made by an officer of the Company 
lower in rank than an Assistant Weaving Master. If the latter officer directs a deduc- 
tion of Ra. or over, and the weaver disputes his liability to pay the same, there 
shall be a joint examination of the damaged cloth by such officer of the Company 
as the Manager appoints and a representative of the weavers, who may be either an 
smployee of the Company or an official of a registered Trade Union. If they agree 
in their decision, the Manager shall accept their decision. - If they disagree, and there 
is no independent person to whom the Manager and the weavers’ representative agree 
to refer the dispute, the Manager shall decide what amount (if any) shall be deducted 
from the weaver’s wages.” 
We have referred to the matter at some length here in order to show the impossibility 
of taking into account this peculiar form of wage deduction in arriving at the average 
of a weaver’s earnings. It is impossible to estimate the money value of the ¢ fine > 
which may, moreover, in a few cases, where the type of cloth handed over is readily 
saleable, actually involve a profit and not a loss.