1HE GARMENT INDUSTRY IN INDIA 4t per cent) did not employ any women. Female employment was confined to 361 units. In the Delhi study, 4000 units are mentioned of which 322 are reported to be factories. Female employment in the industry in Delhi area was 2799 out of a total of 11,768 workers (i.e., around 24 per cent). The Madras study does not mention the proportion of female employment. In the country as a whole, estimates of female labour vary between 20 to 25 per cent. This h in contrast to other countries, with figures in Hongkong amounting to 70 per cent ; in Japan to 73 per cent and in West Europe and North America to 83 per cent. It is possible that employment figures are underestimates and that homeworkers and casual workers may not be reported. Nevertheless, the contention that the industry as a whole is male need not be far wrong. If one compares the garment industry with other female-employing industries the proportion is less than in textiles, plantation and food products but more than in chemicals, paper, etc. While it is true that the industry is not female dominated as in other countries, a surprising feature is that women workers are employed primarily in the big factory units that use assembly line production methods— a paradoxical phenomenon when we notice that in the company as a whole women are predominantly in the informal/decentralized sector where, it is agreed, they happen to be because of entry difficulties in the organized sector. In the Bombay region, three or four units employ hundreds of women workers. For example there are 16 units in the factory sector that has over 90 per cent female workers. In the smaller units, the proportion of women varies between 16 to 20 per cent. This seems to be the case in Madras and Delhi also. What is the rationale for preferring women in the large units ? These large units are also those that are subsidiaiies of the big textile mills in the country. All the three regional studies indicate that the registered factory units are part of the "organized" sector only in name. Their capital outlay is very small. More importantly, there is near universal flouting of labour laws. Between powerful managements and obliging factory inspectorates, the protection of labour laws is something that exists only on paper. Secondly, the bulk of the labour force and even more so, of women workers is casual or temporary. Rukmini Rao-Sahba Hussain say that 73 per cent of the women workers reported themselves as 'permanent' but they found that none of them had any letters of confirmation or enjoyed the attendant benefits. Kalpagam reported that 73 per cent of the female work force was temporary. In our study, the proportion was even higher : 90 per cent. The device of keeping a large temporary work force yields a double beneHt—on the one hand it absolves the management from having to give ESIS/Provident Fund/Bonus etc., and on the other makes termination of services easy. We found that only five workers were permanent in the Bombay sample units. When a particular worker was not dismissed or