'File 28/14 Labour employed by the Bahrain Petroleum Company Limited, Bahrain' [‎224r] (452/525)

M
migrtmXm* letter Ho* 300 dfit^d thm Xath October I93H, with
its onclo«ur©a, which 2 have receive in reply* I have
U«lAye4 ny report in orter to obtain a copy of the luloo a^do
by the iovemaent of Indie under the Indian r^l^ration c%»
These have now arrived and 9 so far m I con see» oontAin
nothing affecting the queation at iaaue* 1 on unable to
locate any law or rule *hich ewers the inatructiona iasued
ly the i'rotector of stnigrants to the ^awpany, end it ia not
clear to m why laOAlly recruited employees whose original
hone ia in the lunjab and whoae normal Journeys to and from
their hones tould be via frnvncht should be required to
register in Bonfcay* rior f on the cjueation of Jurisdiotion
which the rrotector of migrants ar-vaars to have miaad
himself in a sons what acute fora, ii iu clemr to oe how a
T rcvince in India or the Protector at any port obtains
jurisdiction over persons who have bean recruited actually
in Bahrain*
4* l should perhaps interpolate here, with reference to
paragraphs 6 to 6 of the Protector of migranta 1 letter y that
the Bahrain Petroleum Cowpany iJLmited assart that they find
it cheaper to pay on any claim, however unjustified, made on
m mal&prmt** return to rjii4bay 9 rather than go to a Court of
taw* This has been their poaitlcn hitherto, but now X gather
Msmt they intend to contest a few cases for their ovwi
protection.
6* 2 woul request that X nay be infomed of the
position in regard to the type of contmct to be ueed for
locally recruited Indians.
6* A similar question haa also arisen in retard to the
Bahrain lovarnacnt's in^Uan aoiployees* the Bahrain government
have hitherto cn^iaged Indiana in India on ^ fomsof contract,
CUvC.
ef which 1 JBelsas a copy, which to my mind ta sxtramsly fair
to the employee* instances have recently arisen in which
employees/