§ 1. Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will make a statement relative to the recent strike at the Hooghly Jute Mills at Garden Reach, near Calcutta, when serious injuries were inflicted on some of the strikers by the British members of the mill management staff and a force of Nepalese guards?
§ 3. Mr. SORENSENasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, during a strike for better working conditions and higher wages in the Hooghly Jute Mills, nearly 1,500 weavers were evicted from their homes by the employers; and what steps it is proposed to take to promote legislation which will prevent employers taking punitive measures of this kind in industrial disputes?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)The employés of the Hooghly Jute Mills came out on 3 strike on 20th April to protest against an increase in working hours. On 6th May the European manager and his assistant accompanied by a party of Ghurka mill watchmen or guards, went to the coolie lines to communicate with the strikers, not to evict them. The party was attacked and overpowered by a strong force of strikers. The manager and his assistant, who were severely assaulted, were rescued by the timely arrival of a small police picket, armed only with regulation lathies. In the course of restoring order a number of persons on both sides were injured, the total number of strikers injured being 46. The mill was reopened on 21st May and work was proceeding normally by 25th May. Of the total number of 2,300 strikers all have returned to duty except 290. After the occurrence of 6th May the workers evacuated a number of rooms in which new recruits were accommodated. Twenty-five rooms not vacated by strikers were taken for further recruits on 20th May and 60 strikers were evicted. This measure appears not to have been punitive, but an inevitable consequence of the replacement of the strikers by new hands.
§ Mr. GRENFELLCan the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the question of eviction has not been raised, and has not been itself the cause of the trouble that took place?
§ Mr. BUTLEROur information goes to show that the employers communicated with the strikers, and that the eviction only took place when new hands were taken to replace those on strike and they had vacated the other dwellings.
§ Mr. GRENFELLThe hon. Gentleman does not inform the House of the nature of that communication. Is it not possible that the communication was a notice to quit?
§ Mr. BUTLERI understand that the original strike arose about a dispute over an increase of working hours, and I presume the eviction of the strikers followed, and this was one of the matters under consideration.