Title: Consideration of the Cine-workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2000 (Bill passed)
17.10 hrs.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, we shall take up item no. 15. Shri Muni Lall.
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR (SHRI MUNI LALL): Mr. Chairman, Sir, on behalf of Dr. Satyarayan Jatiya, I beg to move:
“That the Bill further to amend the Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981, be taken into consideration. ”
As the hon. Members are aware, Cine Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981 is a progressive social welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of cine workers. The Act envisages extension of welfare measures such as health and medical care and educational assistance to cine-workers and their family members. The corpus of the Fund is created out of a cess levied and collected as a duty of excise on features films certified by the Central Board of Film Certification, which is credited to the Consolidated Fund of India under Section 5 of the Cine Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1981.
The Fund is utilised for financing activities to promote the welfare of workers employed in cine industry.
There are 63,000 cine workers approximately at present in the country, out of which only 30,000 workers are getting benefits under ongoing welfare schemes. The reason for this is that the wage/remuneration limit prescribed under the Act has in a way become insignificant and so, a large number of workers remain outside the scope of the definition of cine workers due to increase in wages/remuneration over a period of time.
The ceiling of Rs. 1,600 p.m. where the remuneration is paid by way of monthly wages, or a sum of Rs. 8,000 where such remuneration has been by way of lump sum, is prescribed under sub-section (b)(ii) of Section 2 for making the cine workers entitled to welfare benefits under the Act. This ceiling was last revised in 1987 by an amendment of the Act. Since then, there has been a substantial increase in wages/remuneration of cine workers. Since there has been a commensurate increase in prices, therefore, there has been a continuous demand to increase the wage/remuneration limit under the Act so that the cine workers, who are presently outside the definition of cine workers due to increased wages/remuneration, are also covered under the definition of cine workers for the purpose of Act.
In view of the aforesaid facts and in order to bring the bulk of the hitherto uncovered cine workers under the ambit of the welfare provisions, it is proposed to remove the existing ceiling on wages/remuneration given in Section 2(b) of the Cine Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981 and authorise the Central Government to prescribe the wages/remuneration of cine workers by issue of notification in the Gazettle of India from time to time; by an amendment to Section 2(b) of the Cine Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981, so that increase in the ceiling of remuneration of cine workers in case it is considered necessary and desirable, can be notified from time to time without amending the Act frequently.
It has been recommended by the Central Advisory Committee on Cine Fund in its fourth meeting held on 2.5.2000, that the income ceiling be notified as Rs. 8,000 where the remuneration is paid by way of monthly wages and Rs.1,00,000 where such remuneration has been by way of lump sum. By this amendment, approximately 33,000 cine workers would be added, thus raising the total number of cine workers to be covered under the welfare provisions to 63,000 approximately.
With these words, I commend the Bill for unanimous support of this august House.
“That the Bill further to amend the Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981, be taken into consideration. ”
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN (SIVAGANGA): Respected Chairman, Sir, even though we are supporting the Bill, we would like to place certain problems that are faced by the cine-workers who are not fully covered by this Amendment Act.
This amendment might be a simple one on the face of it but at the same time we have to see whether it helps the workers. This Act is for the welfare of the people in the industry, which was once a very strong industry but is now fluctuating. Even in the definition, it has been said, ‘whose remuneration with respect to such employment in or in connection with the production of each of any five feature films’. So, the phrase ‘five feature films’ has been mentioned as a condition to get the benefit of this Act. Now, there is no producer who has finished five feature films. Within one film itself, the producer goes out of the industry. Therefore, this Act would not help; this amendment would not help in the present situation. The film industry is totally wrecked by piracy and by mega serials on TV that have taken the position of films.
Throughout India more than one crore people are dependent on the film industry but the entire industry is not properly looked after by the Union Government and by the State Governments. In this situation, it is difficult to find people who have got remuneration in five feature films. So, will this amendment help the cine-workers in any way?
In the Statement of Objects and Reasons, they have said that the number of workers covered under the on-going schemes has been found to be small. The reason for this is that the wage and remuneration limit prescribed under the Act has become insignificant and a large number of workers therefore remain outside the scope of the definition of cine-workers due to increase in wages and remuneration over a period of time. This might be a reason but it is not the sole reason. The reason is that the industry is not totally taken into consideration.
The industrial workers who are in the cine-field are now included because this Act is supported by two other Acts also. One of them is the Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981. Under that Act, any worker has to register himself according to the agreement, which was also registered in the process. It was only then that he would become a worker who could benefit from the Cine-Workers’ Benefit Welfare Act.
There is a cess collected under the Cine-Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1981. I would just like to draw the attention of the Government here. The definition of cine-worker here is somewhat bigger and wider than the definition now given in this amendment. Under section 2 (c) (ii) of the Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981, it has been said, ‘whose remuneration with respect to such employment in or in connection with the production of such feature films does not exceed where such remuneration by way of monthly wages a sum of Rs.1,600 per month’. Here, a ceiling of Rs.15,000 has also been provided in this Act but at the same time an amendment has been brought to have executive power to widen whatever is available in the market. This means, this definition will not help them. When the present Act is amended in the same way as the Cine-Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981, under which a worker has to register himself as a cine-worker, the provision for registration in this Act is also not going to be eliminated. Therefore, section 2 (c) (ii) of that Act also should be amended. Similarly, the executive power that is going to be enforced by way of the Cine-Workers’ Welfare Fund Act should also be amended. Otherwise, this amendment will, in no way help the cine-workers because they are not covered under the definition of the Act unless they are going to be registered as cine-workers and their agreements are going to be registered under that Act.
In the same way, I would just like to draw the attention of the Government that this Cess Act also should be amended because the cess is very poor. It was taken into consideration in 1981.
Sir, I will just read Section 3(1):
“There shall be levied and collected as a cess, for the purposes of the Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981, a duty of excise at such rate, not being less than one thousand rupees and not exceeding twenty thousand rupees on every feature film, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify from time to time. ”
Sir, Rs. 20,000/- is a very meagre amount because crores of rupees are invested on the production of the film. When it is so, this should also be amended. This fund should be increased because the Cine-Workers Welfare Cess is being raised through this Act. Therefore, the fund should be there. Then, only the workers can be benefited.
Sir, in the last amendment which was done in 1983, the then hon. Minister had proposed that they were going to get Rs. one crore and above in the name of Gandhi film. So, through that fund also they are going to help the workers. But, now, Rs. 20,000/- is collected. It is a very meagre amount. This should also be amended to enlarge the fund position so that the cine-workers can be helped in a proper way because helping of the workers is also very important because it is connected with scholarship, with giving family planning benefits and with other welfare activities.
But, at the same time, I would like to draw the attention of this Government that the registration of a worker is itself a very big task for an ordinary person because artistes, actors, cine workers and all types of workers are covered. But being a third person to be registered under the Act is a very tough job because the workers having the organised sector have got their own associations.
Sir, to go inside an association itself is a very big problem. Many of the people are not allowed to have the card for themselves. They have to wait for many years and on that basis the workers who are already controlling the organised association will be considered as one of the workers. Therefore, I would like to suggest that this aspect also should be considered by the Government. So, there should be a comprehensive Act, which will help the workers in proper perspective.
Sir, in the same way, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to Section 16 of the Cine Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981. There is a definition in Section 16. I quote:
“Every cine-worker who has worked in not less than three feature films with one or more producers, as if such cine-worker were an employee within the meaning of that Act “.
This is somewhat wider because that Act wants to give three feature films. But, at the same time, it gives a longer rope as if such cine-worker were an employee with one or more producers. But this present amendment is restricted. It provides that the producer should have the five feature films, then only they get the benefit. That means that it is totally arbitrary. It is against the principles even under Section 16 where they have to register as a worker. Here, they cannot do it. Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Government that there should be a comprehensive Bill which should cover all the three Acts so that all the people are benefited by this.
Now, mega serials in the television have totally occupied the field. We have even requested in the Consultative Committee of Information and Broadcasting to take action against piracy. Many fastings, many processions, many agitations throughout India have been staged by the producers, distributors, and also by the theatre owners. The artistes and artiste associations and everybody have done it because the piracy is killing the industry. As the Anthrax is killing the people, the piracy is killing the cine industry. That means crores of people are going to be killed gradually and it is happening.
Even a new film which is just one week old, is produced in a pirated CD and is played in mini buses and Omni vans. They are sent throughout India even before their release. Even the TV channels are showing them. You can see how the industry suffers and how the workers suffer! What is the action taken by the Government in this regard?
In the same way, I would like to give another picture, that is, about the mega serials. Plenty of workers, actors and artistes are now migrating to TV serials. But is any cess levied on TV serials? Is any amount collected from them? They are minting money. They are making money by way of putting advertisements in between the serials, but they are not spending even a pie for the welfare of the workers.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Please conclude now.
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN : Yes, I am concluding, Sir.
SHRI PRIYA RANJAN DASMUNSI (RAIGANJ): He is the only speaker from our Party, Sir.
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN : Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of the Government to the mega serials and the serials which are now occupying the field, which are now taking away the cine film world. In the cine film world, crores of rupees are invested, but the day-to-day advertisements alone are sufficient for making a serial… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not interrupt him.
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN: He is interfering because he wants to protect his leader, because the Sun TV is grabbing the entire film industry.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about the JAYA TV?
SHRI E.M. SUDARSANA NATCHIAPPAN : That is also, but the advertisements are not so much as compared to the Sun TV.
Feature film means a full length cinematograph film produced wholly or partly in India with a format and a story woven around a number of characters where the plot is revealed mainly through dialogues and not wholly through narration, animation or cartoon depiction, and does not include an advertisement film. The same definition applies to TV mega serials also. But, at the same time, they are not spending even a pie for producing them because they very easily get money by marketing method. They are collecting advertisements and they are using the same workers who are in the field of cine films. The same artistes, the same workers are utilised here also. Therefore, they should pay the cess so that the Cess Pool should come up. At the same time, the artistes who are in the field, should be protected by enactment. There should be social security for them because that industry is also facing a lot of competition. A worker or an artiste may not be in the film industry for ever. They may be pushed out by competition. Therefore, the artistes and the workers should be protected. The definition of worker should, in a way, be to protect even a person who just enters into the profession. If he continues for a year or two, he should also be protected when the executive order is promulgated. I feel that this amendment is appreciated only in one way, that is, because of the inclusion of just one word. It says: “does not exceed such sum, whether monthly or by way of lump sum or instalments as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette”. The word ‘instalment’ is not found in any other Act. This word is very useful because the workers are paid in instalments. This type of development and this type of focussing should be there and a more comprehensive Bill should be brought so that the workers and the industry is protected in all manners.
SHRI SUNIL KHAN (DURGAPUR): Sir, the Cine-Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Bill, which was enacted in 1981 and was amended in 1987, is being further amended. The Bill was brought in the year 2000 and now we are in 2001. The salient features of the Bill are that in the previous Bill it was mentioned as Rs.1000 to Rs.1,600 and a lump sum of Rs.5,000 and Rs.8,000.
Now, in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of this Bill, there are no such words of that type about unlimited funds. It may be that it is ‘unlimited funds or the minimum’. Actually the amendment should be that there will be a minimum amount for the Cine Workers Welfare Fund and the maximum is to be extended. It is not clear as to what will be the maximum. The previous speaker has already discussed regarding Section 16 of the 1981 Act and also about the other Act that it should be amended.
This is a very small amending Bill. There is no question of opposing it. It is fact that nowadays, no producer can make five films. So, this should be considered. I feel that not only the workers but the artistes also should be included in it. Do you know the name of late Shri Pradeep Kumar who was above 70 years on the verge of his death, nobody is looking after him due to money. I have witnessed a TV programme one-and-a-half months ago wherein he said he had no money after his retirement. One of the organisers or well wishers has given his money to help Shri Kumar. I feel that this Bill should be more comprehensive and it should not be only for Cine workers but also for the artistes who played a very significant role in cinema field.
I also feel that theatres also should be included in an amended form. The Jatra artistes also who played a very significant role should be included. In our State of West Bengal there is one artiste, Ms. Jyotsna Dutt who played very significant role in so many Jatras. Now, she is in a very difficult condition and there is nobody to look after her. The Leftists’ Women organisation, the All India Democratic Women’s Organisation, have given some money to her. It is a very bad condition. Therefore, this should include not only Cine workers but also the artistes whom we should look after. The Bill should be more comprehensive.
You have stated in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that there are 63,000 workers. The figure is much more and not just 63,000. If you take into account the situation in the whole of India where there are many serials and mega-serials which are produced, five or six at a time, the workers and the staff are more. They should be looked after. There should be a comprehensive legislation to take care of women artistes and the workers and their families.
I feel that when the workers are in an organised manner, it will be good. The Cine workers may be provided trade union rights because if they have the rights they will fight; otherwise they will not. So, they should be provided the trade union rights.
I once again request that there should be a comprehensive legislation in this regard.
डॉ. रघुवंश प्रसाद सिंह (वैशाली) : सभापति महोदय, सिनेमा कर्मकार कल्याण विधेयक में संशोधन के लिए प्रस्ताव आया है। मूल रूप से यह १९८१ का कानून है और समें कहा गया है कि परिभाषा में बदलाव करना है। चूंकि महंगाई बढ़ने से पैसा बढ़ जाता था, १६०० माहवारी से ८००० तक एकमुश्त वाला कर्मचारी माना जायेगा, अन्यथा नहीं माना जाएगा, लेकिन पैसा बढ़ जाने से परिभाषा गलत हो रही है। इसीलिए संक्षेप में दावा किया जा रहा है कि हम विधेयक लाये हैं। अब उसमें इन्होंने यह भी कहा है कि ६३००० कर्मकार हैं। सन् २००० में विधेयक आया था और अब साल भर से ज्यादा बीत गया है, क्या अभी तक ६३००० ही कर्मचारी होंगे? क्या उसमें कोई घटबढ़ नहीं होती? यह कैसा विधेयक है? इसमें यह होना चाहिए कि किस तरह से कौन काम करता है, उसको सिनेमा कर्मकार माना जायेगा, परंतु ऐसा नहीं है। उसमें है कि १६०० माहवारी से ८००० तक एकमुश्त वाला और महंगाई बढ़ने से पैसा बढ़ेगा तो कर्मचारी के लिए फिट नहीं है तो कहते हैं कि कानून बदलने के लिए हम लाये हैं। इस बिल में कोई स्पष्टता नहीं है। जो वर्किंग क्लास है, मेहनतकश मजूदर हैं, उनका क्या होगा? सिनेमा का जब यह हाल है तो गरीब को कौन देखने वाला होगा? इसीलिए बात स्पष्ट होनी चाहिए और कर्मकार का कल्याण होना चाहिए।
हम देखते हैं कि जो कैमरा लिये हैं, अपने कंधे पर कैमरा लिये इधर-उधर दौड़ता है, वह सिनेमा कर्मकार में आता है कि नहीं आता है? पुराने समय में जब टी.वी. का बोलबाला नहीं था, इतना प्रचार नहीं था, उस समय १९८१ का ही कानून था लेकिन हम जानना चाहते हैं कि उसमें जो हजारों कर्मकार लगे हुए हैं, उनका हिसाब-किताब सरकार को है कि नहीं है? टी.वी. सीरियल में जो हैं, वे सिनेमा कर्मकार हुए कि नहीं हुए? यहां जो कैमरा लिये दौड़ादौड़ी कर रहे हैं, घंटों जो यहां गेट पर खड़े रहते हैं, वे सिनेमा कर्मकार है या नहीं है? इसीलिए नाच्चीयपन साहब ने भाषण में पुराना कानून, नया कानून, ओरजिनल कानून सब पढ़कर सुनाया है। इसीलिए मेरा कहना है कि यह बिल प्रासंगिक, समीचीन आना चहिए। जितने लोग जो काम कर रहे हैं, उन सबके बारे में सरकार को विचार करना चाहिए और उसके मुताबिक कानून लाना चाहिए तब सही मायने में हम काम करने वाले लोगों का हित देख सकते हैं। जहां-कहीं भी मेहनतकश मजदूरी करने वाले लोग हैं, वहां शोषण है। पूंजीपति लोगों द्वारा गरीब का शोषण हो रहा है। सरकार को यह देखना चाहिए कि जो मेहनतकश लोग हैं, उनको कैसे प्रोटैक्शन दिया जाये, उनका कैसे कल्याण हो, इस पर गंभीरता से विचार करना चाहिए। इसका नाम तो ठीक है, कर्मकार कल्याण विधेयक, लेकिन परिभाषा में स्पष्टता नहीं है। इसीलिए काम्प्रीहेंसिव बिल आना चाहिए। तमाम तरह के टी.वी. सीरियल हम देख रहे हैं उनमें कंधे पर रखकर कैमरामैन दौड़ रहा है, उन सबको भी इसमें इंक्लूड किया जाना चाहिए और उनका कल्याण कैसे होगा, कैसे उनकी जीविका चलेगी, कैसे उनका हित हो सकता है, इस दिशा में विचार करना चाहिए। उनमें भी कई टैम्परेरी हैं, जब चाहे उनको हटा दिया जाता है, उनके साथ कोई ट्रेड यूनियन्स नहीं हैं। इसीलिए उनका सब तरह से प्रोटैक्शन हो, इस तरह का कानून आयेगा तो हम सब उसका समर्थन करेंगे। अब शरद जी तो हमेशा से काम करने वालों के लिए बोलते रहे हैं। अब उनको हवाईजहाज से बदलकर लेबर मंत्रालय में ले आये हैं।
मेहनतकश लोगों के हितों के लिए बिल लायें। खेतिहर मजदूरों के संबंध में भी बिल लम्बित पड़ा हुआ है, उसको लेकर आइए। इस दिशा में कदम उठाने से सरकार सत्ता में रहे या न रहे, लेकिन यह बिल आऩा चाहिए। जो असंगठित मजदूर हैं, जिनका शोषण हो रहा है, जिनको साल भर भी काम नहीं मिलता है, आधा पेट भोजन मिलता है, उनके हितों को ध्यान में रखते हुए बिल लाना चाहिए।
इन शब्दों के साथ मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूं।
*m05
SHRI VIJAYENDRA PAL SINGH (BHILWARA): Mr. Chairman, Sir, I stand here to support the Cine-Workers Welfare Fund (Amendment) Bill, 2000. Though it is a very small Bill, it is a very important Bill.
Today, everybody knows that the small screen industry is really becoming very large and the cinema industry is decimating. So, this Amendment Bill is very necessary for the cinema workers welfare fund. What my colleague from the other side said is very true.
Now, the very important part is the registration of workers. Who are going to be registered in this Welfare Fund? Who will be the beneficiaries of this Welfare Fund? These are all very important issues to be addressed in the Bill.
The producer changes his workers very often from one film to another. Behind the camera people are changed from one film to another. But it does not happen in the TV serials. That industry is becoming very big. So, this point related to the cinema workers has to be really specified in the Bill. Otherwise, this Amendment Bill will not have the effect that it should have.
Sir, my next point is about disparity of the fees. The actors and the actresses get a lot of money. But the persons behind the camera are not given enough money. They are not given due importance. They do not get the funds. They are, in a way, being exploited. They are not recognised also. So, this part must be taken care of in this Bill.
Sir, this Bill also does not cover the exhibition side. The people working in the cinema halls are also to be recognised. Nowadays, everybody is wanting to close the cinema halls. It is becoming more lucrative to put up a shopping complex or some residential place there. So, mostly all cinema halls are being closed. But what will happen to those people, workers — who have been working there for the last 30 to 40 years in the cinema halls — if the cinema halls where they are working are closed? So, this part also needs to be covered in this Amendment Bill. I am sure, the hon. Minister will cover this aspect in the Bill.
Similarly, if somebody owns a cinema hall, he doe not run it himself. He gives it to a contractor for five years to run it. Then, the next contractor comes in after five years. Now, the persons who are working in the cinema hall already for the last five years may even be got removed by the next contractor. The next contractor might turn them out. In that case, what will happen to those workers? That is the moot question, which I think, the hon. Minister will take care of in this Bill. Something has really got to be done on the exhibition side. It should not be that only the cinema-producing workers shall be covered. Cinema hall workers are equally to be considered favourably in this Bill.
Sir, my last point, which is really of great importance, is that nowadays, because of the piracy of the new films specially, it is really very difficult to run the cinemas. That is why, small screen is taking over. The serials in the TV are becoming more popular because they are bought by the small screens. With all these things happening, the workers do not get the money and face very many problems.
So, considering all these aspects, it is all the more necessary that the cine-workers are taken care of and benefited to the maximum possible extent.
With these few words, I support this Bill.
MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, hon. Minister will reply.
श्री रामदास आठवले (पंढरपुर) : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉÖZÉä ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉ ºÉ{ÉÉä]Ç BÉE®xÉÉ cè*
ºÉ£ÉÉ{ÉÉÊiÉ àÉcÉänªÉ : आठवले जी, कृपया आप कोआपरेट कीजिए।
… (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : Kindly cooperate with the Chair. I have called the Minister to reply. I am not permitting you.
… (Interruptions)
श्री रामदास आठवले : àÉcÉänªÉ, àÉé <ºÉ ÉʤÉãÉ BÉEÉ ºÉàÉlÉÇxÉ BÉE®iÉÉ cÚÆ*…( व्यवधान)
MR. CHAIRMAN : I have called the Minister. Please take your seat.
श्री रामदास आठवले : महोदय, मैं इस बिल पर एक मिनट बोलना चाहता हूं। … (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : This will not go on record. Please sit down and cooperate with the Chair.
Hon. Minister will now reply.
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF LABOUR (SHRI MUNI LALL): I am very much thankful to the hon. Members who have participated in the discussion. Hon. Member, Shri Natchiappan has raised certain issues. This industry is a fluctuating industry and the Act has a provision to register workers. A provision is there to register workers and to give them identity cards. When the identity cards are issued to them, such workers will be benefited.
The definition of cine workers are there in the Act itself. We are not widening the scope of that definition. He told that there is a ceiling that is put to cover workers, etc. The Act will be highly beneficial for them and according to our survey, about 63,000 workers will be totally covered by this; and further, survey work will be going on to cover more workers. So, there will be no discrepancy in regard to this. There is a tripartite committee in the Labour Department and the Labour Department will be taking care of all these things. So, whatever he has suggested has already been covered in the Act itself.
I am very much obliged to my guardian Dr. Raghuvansh Babu who has given a very comprehensive statement regarding the amendment to the Act. He has also suggested that we bring out a comprehensive Act. There is no doubt about that. But the arena of this Act is very limited. It is a welfare Act and it is not an Act taking care of remuneration. Welfare cess will be collected and then it will be paid for the welfare of the cine workers and their family members, for their education, health care, etc. So, the Act gives much scope for cine workers and it will benefit them the most.
For the benefit of agricultural workers, another Bill will come; the Labour Department has comprehensive Acts. It takes care of workers in larger interest. We are very much alert to see that workers are benefited, whether they are agricultural workers or industrial workers.
Shri Sunil Khan has made a statement, but perhaps, he has not read the Act carefully. In the Act itself, the definition of cine workers has been given. He has quoted late lamented Pradeep Kumar. Actors and actresses are not covered in this Act. So, there is no question of giving any benefit to them.
I am also thankful to Shri Ramdas Athawale who has supported this Bill. In toto, this Bill is beneficial for cine workers and they will be registered. It will cover all the workers up-till now. From time to time, we will be increasing it, whenever there is need. Revision will be made for the payment of cess. So, there is no doubt about this. This Bill will prove to be beneficial to cine workers. Thank you.
श्री रामदास आठवले : àÉcÉänªÉ, +ÉÉ{ÉxÉä BÉEcÉ cè ÉÊBÉE 15,000 iÉBÉE cÉÒ =xÉBÉEÉ {ÉäàÉå] ®cäMÉÉ* ÉÊ{ÉEãàÉ <Æbº]ÅÉÒ àÉå AäºÉÉ cè ÉÊBÉE ¤ÉcÖiÉ ºÉÉ®É {ÉEɪÉnÉ ABÉE ÉÊ{ÉEãàÉ àÉå cÉäiÉÉ cè +ÉÉè® =ºÉ ÉÊ{ÉEãàÉ àÉå VÉÉä BÉEÉàÉ BÉE®xÉä ´ÉÉãÉä cé =xcå 15,000 ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ {ÉäàÉå] ÉÊàÉãÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA*
<ºÉÉÊãÉA ÉÊ{ÉEãàÉ <Æbº]ÅÉÒ àÉå VÉÉä |ÉÉäbáÉںɺÉÇ cé ´Éä +ÉMÉ® VªÉÉnÉ {ÉäàÉå] näxÉÉ SÉÉcåMÉä iÉÉä <ºÉ ¤ÉèxÉ BÉEä BÉEÉ®hÉ xÉcÉÓ nä ºÉBÉEåMÉä* =xÉBÉEÉä 15000 âó{ɪÉä ºÉä VªÉÉnÉ {ÉäàÉå] näxÉä BÉEÉÒ {É®àÉÉÒ¶ÉxÉ cÉäxÉÉÒ SÉÉÉÊcA* <ºÉÉÊãÉA <ºÉ ¤ÉèxÉ BÉEÉä +ÉÉ{ÉBÉEÉä =~ÉxÉÉ SÉÉÉÊcA, ªÉc càÉÉ®ÉÒ àÉÉÆMÉ cè*
gÉÉÒ àÉÖÉÊxÉ ãÉÉãÉ : इसमें लमिटेशन तो नहीं है कि ज्यादा नहीं दे सकते हैं।
SHRI VARKALA RADHAKRISHNAN (CHIRAYINKIL): I support the Bill. I would only say that a number of cine-workers are excluded from the purview of the Bill. The Minister’s attempt should be to include them also in one way or the other. Otherwise, benefits will be denied to a majority of the workers working directly or indirectly in the field. I expect the Minister to include all those workers who are working in the field from morning to night. They are entitled to get the benefit and that must be made available to them. I hope the Minister will take steps to include all those workers working in the field either directly or indirectly. It must be done legally and all the workers should come within the purview of the statute so that they get the benefit out of it.
SHRI MUNI LALL: The workers’ association and trade unions are there to look after their interest.
MR. CHAIRMAN : The question is:
“That the Bill further to amend the Cine-workers Welfare Fund Act, 1981, be taken into consideration ”
The motion was adopted.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The House will now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.
Clause 2 Amendment of Section
2 of Act 33 of 1981
Page 1, line 12,–
for “2000”
substitute "2001’ (3) (Shri Muni Lall) MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The motion was adopted. Clause2, as amended, was added to the Bill. Clause 1 Short title and commencement Amendment made: Page 1, line 4,-- for "2000" substitute "2001" (2) (Shri Muni Lall) MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill. The motion was adopted. Clause 1, as amended, was added to the Bill. Enacting Formula Amendment made: Page 1, line 1,-- for "Fifty-first" substitute "Fifty-second" (1) (Shri Muni Lall) MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That the Enacting Formula, as amended, stand part of the Bill." The motion was adopted. The Enacting Formula, as amended, was added to the Bill. The Long Title was added to the Bill. SHRI MUNI LALL: Sir, I beg to move: "That the Bill, as amended, be passed." MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is: "That the Bill, as amended, be passed." The motion was adopted. MR. CHAIRMAN : The House stands adjourned to meet tomorrow, the 21st November, 2001 at 11.00 a.m. 1756 hrs The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the Clock on Wednesday, November 21, 2001/Kartika 30, 1923 (Saka). -------------