MINES.

1i9

afforded by the law, but in a service tenancy the rendering of service
is a legal obligation in return for the holding of the land. An pnder-
baking to render service in a mine as the condition of holding land
3, in general, an undesirable form of contract. We recognise a
difference between lands away from the colliery and actual colliery
lands, including those held to protect the owner from claims for damage
arising from his underground operations. In regard to the first, we
recommend that, for the future, the law should prohibit the creation of
tenancies with colliery service as a condition of the holding. We recom-
mend also that existing tenancies should be examined by Government
bo see whether they can be converted to rent holdings with equity to
all concerned. The position in respect of lands held for the purpose of
working coal is different. In many cases the colliery owner must retain
full control and cannot afford to lease it on terms which would
give rise to permanent tenancy rights. The grant to miners of
permission to cultivate it is usually in the interest of both parties,
and there is no reason why such lands should not be held by colliery
employees as an amenity or part remuneration of their service so long
as they continue to be employed. The determination of the lands
held for the purpose of working coal should be made by Government.
Raising Contractors.

The greater part of the output of coal is obtained by labour
working under raising contractors. In the Jharia field these contractors
are responsible for about 70 per cent and in the Raniganj field for about
10 per cent of the output. The raising contractor receives a fixed
payment per ton, in return for which he recruits the workers, mines the
coal and loads it into wagons. We have found it to be generally true
that workmen employed by salaried managers, who are personally
responsible for their workers, receive more consideration than those
employed by contractors, and we do not think that the coal-mining
industry forms an exception to thisrule. But there are reasons peculiar
bo the coalfields which, in our view, render a system of employment
through contractors, involving divided responsibility for labour, open
to special objection. Both in law and in fact the manager is responsible
for the safety of the workmen ; he determines where coal shall be worked
and his decisions have the closest effect on the security of the miner.
But even the safety men are not the manager’s subordinates, being selected
and paid by the contractor. The law also holds the manager responsible
for compliance with its provisions in respect of hours of work, holidays,
the employment, of women, ete. As a rule he has also responsibility for
housing and other matters (e.g., water supply) affecting the welfare of the
worker outside the mine. Yet he has ordinarily no responsibility for
the selection of the workers, the distribution of their work, the payment
of their wages or even the numbers employed. We believe that, what-
ever the merits of the system in primitive times, it is now desirable, if
the management is to discharge completely the complex responsibilities
laid upon it by the law and by equity, that the manager should have full
control over the selection, hours of work and payment of the workers.