14 SOCIAL SCIENTIST A promise had come from the M S M Railway that a care -ful examination of the question of leave by rotation as a substitute for compulsory discharge would be made. A circular of 30 July 1932 allayed the apprehension "that the 110 men of the workshops . . . employed on the Remodelling Scheme may be discharged on completion of the work." It said that "the men are most, if not all, permanent employees. Therefore on completion of the work, they will revert to the workshops and there will be no block retrenchment of the men.958 But the hopes raised by this circular were dashed to the ground by the subsequent action of the railway administration. The union was invited to discuss the question of staff retrenchment on 13 September 1932. The proposals of the administration were not communicated to the union. The Agent, M S M Railway, insisted that the union representatives should consider the issues that would be raised by him along with a nominated representative of the non-trade, unionists.9 He threatened the union that he would settle the issues without the union if it did not agree to his procedure. He was keen on establishing "his own precedents and conventions whatever might be the practice followed by his predecessor in office."10 Railway Goes Back on Promise The railway announced on 19 September 1932 that it agreed to the principle of working short-time or leave by rotation so as to carry 20 percent surplus in any shop and only such staff who were surplus beyond this percentage would be discharged.11 Soon a controversy arose over the number of surplus in each shop and non-surplus personnel by trade catergorics, together with particulars relating to the proposed short-time. The union was informed that 474 men were surplus and that the present retrenchment was the unaccomplished part of previous year's retrenchment which was initiated in February on the basic estimate of 1249 surplus hands.12 This statement came as a great surprise to the union. It requested the Agent to furnish information regarding the number of vacancies that occurred since February 1931 in each of the mechanical workshops of the railway so as to varify the new figures of surplus.13 The Agent did not respond. The union came out with its own figures: "Since February 1931 more than 1302 vacancies have occurred in the shops for the period ending 31st October 1932 showing now a deficit of 53 hands instead of a surplus of 474."14 These facts were pointed out in writing in detail to the Agent who was unable to contradict the figures. Written reprc-