WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 315 clauses in question, apparently because they were not satisfied that the doctrines to which we have referred, which were derived from the British common law, would be accepted by Indian courts. They ob- served at the same time that, if the doctrines in question were so accepted and were regarded as inequitable, they should be removed for all workmen and not for the limited classes to which the Workmen’s Compensation Bill was to apply. Those who now advocate legislation have produced little evidence to show that the existing position gives rise to hardship ; but it is possible that suits are not pursued because of the admitted ambiguity of the law and, as the defences in question are in our view inequitable, there is need for ensuring that they cannot be invoked. It should be remembered that ordinarily the workman receiving more than Rs. 300 does not come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and his only remedy is in the civil court; if our recommendations are adopted, the monetary limit will be applicableto all workmen. The majority of us consider, therefore, that a measure for this purpose should now be enacted, and that it might follow the lines of the clauses deleted in 1923, but should, of course, be applicable to all workmen. Sir Victor Bassoon and Sir Alexander Murray point out that the Joint Select Committee likewise expressed the opinion that it was on the whole wiser to restrict the scope of the Bill to workmen’s compensation and to avoid anticipating a difficulty which might not arise. They adhere to this view and are not aware that there has been any change since 1923 to justify legislation of the type suggested. They consider that the sub- stantial increases in the scales of compensation and the wide extension of the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, now recommended, not only reduce any need there may be for such legislation but also form the correct line of advance in social legislation of this kind.