1.When IBA is so magnanimous in
considering retirees issues with sympathy where is the necessity for the
retirees for going to courts?. 2.At the same which court prevents IBA
to settle the issues even when court cases are pending?
VERY APPROPRIATE Qs.
the
No.1 to be whirled on Com.Venkatachalam who angry with retirees for
going to courts and also preventing issues to be settled in retirees
favour implicating some AR15 norms or other, but assuring with
pretension that the unions will take up the matter but ultimately to the
contrary harming retirees interest, signing for that Pension is a
Welfare Measure in last Bipartite or saying AR15. In fact, the Pension
Updation issue is a case from 2000-2001 Bipartite and due from 1998 that
being dragged so far, now 20 years old.
Till
2005 Bipartite, IBA pllayed with the ploy insisting unions to include
the pension cost also in Load Factor thus making unions averse to
Updation - AT THAT TIME ITSELF IF UNIONS STATED AND INSISTED THAT
PENSION IS OUTSIDE LOAD FACTOR AS SEPARATE FUND CREATED AND TO BE
PROVIDED ACC. TO REGULATION 36 AFTER ACTURIAL VALUATION EVERY YEAR FOR
UPDATON ALSO, THINGS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED RIGHTLY. From 2010 it changed
the tactics to drag the issues with pretensions like SYMPATHY, COST
FACTOR for some time and other time showing authoritative stating
matters sub judice.
the
No.2Q is to be posed to UFBU, why it is not asking so when IBA telling
sub judice but simply coming back. UFBU's ATTITUDE ALSO PRECARIOUS FOR
RETIREES AS PER IT'S AND ITS' CONSTITUENTS STINTS IN LAST TWO BI
PARTITES and THAT AUGUR DRACONIAN FUTURE FOR RETIREES WITH APPEALS LET
THEM NOT TO DO ANYTHING, BUT NOT HARM.
Now
also, there such indications from 27.10.2017 bipartite Meet wherein
when stated by IBA that the matter is subjudice, UFBU representatives
replied that they have not gone to courts. what it means is surprising -
whether they want for present employees only? NOW THEY BUSY WITH
STRIKES TILL SIGNING AND DONT RAKE UP RETIREES ISSUES AND SIGN HURRIEDLY
WITH SOME OTHER CLAUSE NOT DIVULGED BY IBA TILL LAST MINUTE - LIKE
PENSION IS A WELFARE MEASURE - & GET IT SIGNED BY UFBU AND ALLIES.
ask both UFBU and IBA to come out with figures of cost factor
This is a gimmick flute - COST FACTOR - playing by IBA for which UNIONS NOD like snakes.
IN
PENSION REGULATIONS, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR HOW PENSION UPDATION IS TO
BE GIVEN WITH FORMULA FOR ALREADY RETIRED AT THAT TIME - THAT A CLEAR
SIGNAL & A TRUST CREATING MOTIVE/clause per AppendixI, ASSURING
THAT PENSION WILL BE UPDATED FOR FUTURE RETIREES ALSO whenever due ie.,
in each bipartite, IE TO US. THE PENSION AGREEMENT ALSO STATED THAT
THE PENSION BEING IMPLEMENTED ON THE LINES OF CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES.
NOW IBA MAKING MOCKERY BY SAYING THAT THERE IS NO WORD TO WORD AGREEMENT
ON UPDATION.
IN FACT, 'COST FACTOR' TAKEN CARE OF IN PENSION REGULATIONS WITH DIRECTION FOR ACTURIAL VALUATION EVERY YEAR.
AND,
MOST IMPORTANTLY, PENSION FUNDS RANGING NEAR 2,00,000 CRORES NOW
SERVICING THE PENSION PAYMENTS WITHIN EARNINGS, AND FROM BEGINNING TO
2008 THERE NO PROVISIONS FROM BANKS IN LIEU OF PF PAYMENTS & IN 2005
MANY BUSINESS MAGAZINES PROBED THAT IN PSBs PENSION FUNDS ARE NOT
PROPERLY PROVIDED BY BANKS. That means, by Pension Schheme, Banks saved a
lot on superannuation obligation that otherwise would have to on PFs
BUT NOT PROVIDING ATLEAST OF THE SAME for 15 YEARS 1993-2008, on plea
that there no significant liabilities on pension payment. NOW WITH 2ND
PENSION OPTION BANKS AGAIN GAINED WITH PF & 156% PENALTY &
WHETHER THEY CONTRIBUTED ON THEIR PART PROPERLY IS NOT
KNOWN/TRANSPARENT. PNB EPISODE OF DIVERTING PENSION FUNDS LAST YEAR TO
THE TUNE OF 2000 CRORES LAST YEAR JUST HUSHED UP.
ALL
THE MORE, THE 2,00,000 CRORES CAPITAL ALSO TO BE AMORTIZED FOR FULL
UTILISATION TO PAYMENTS TO RETIREES CONTRIBUTED TO THE PENSION FUND,
SINCE NPS ARRIVED. BUT IT SEEMS WHEN LAST RETIREE DIES OR IN MEANTIME
ALSO, IBA/BANKS SEEM TO SIPHON OUT PENSION FUNDS TO PROFIT ACCOUNTS
CLANDESTINELY, THANKS TO UNION/ASSNS. REPRESENTATIVES IN PENSION TRUSTS
ACT BLIND.
= VBV RAMESH
Venkataramaiah M
To:ibap-retirees@googlegroups.com
4 Jun at 10:02 AM
Harping
on the same old issues will not solve the problems of retirees. For
updation of pension and improvement in family pension of retirees cost
factor is the stumbling block in arriving at a settlement on these
issues as per IBA and UFBU also appeared
convinced. With regard to 100 percent neutralisation all these years IBA took shelter
of
court cases and matter as subjudice. When IBA is so magnanimous in
considering retirees issues with sympathy where is the necessity for the
retirees for going to courts?. At the same which court prevents IBA
to settle the issues even when court cases are pending? Now I request
AIBRF not to dwell too much on bipartite settlement and cut off dates
and ask both UFBU and IBA to come out with figures of cost factor
immediately/expeditiously so that we can take decision on our future course of action,
since already valuable time is lost in court cases.
Sent from my iPad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Katari Satyanarayana <satyakatar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 8:23 PM
Subject: AIBEA letter to AIBRF
To: krishna murthy Gundakaram <kmgundakaram@gmail.com>
Dear Sri Krishna Murthy garu,
For
your ready information and evaluation I am forwarding the following
message of mine dated 15 05 2015 sent to our comrades of IBRA-AP seeking
their valuable advice which is yet to be received.
With Regards.
Katari Satyanarayana.
"Dear Sri. B.V.Narayana Rao Garu,
General Secretary,
Indian Bank Retirees' Association -AP.
Please
extend your valuable and considered views /comments on the letter of
Sri. C.H.Venkatachalam dated 14 05 2015 forwarded by you earlier to
the IBAP-retirees group members. In this context, text of the said
letter with my expressed views in parenthesis is rendered below for
your ready reference. Hope you would readily oblige in the interest
of our Association's members.
"Dear friends .
Please go through the views mentioned in the parenthesis:
To
General Secretary
All India Bank Retirees Federation
D-1/1, Sector-C, Scheme-71,
Near Kasara Bazar School,
Indore – 452 009Dear Sir,We are in receipt of your letter dt. 12-5-2015 addressed to the Convener of UFBU with copy to us.On behalf of AIBEA and even UFBU, we would like to say that the contents of the letter are unwarrantedly provocative and not based on full facts. The demands relating to Retirees were included in the charter of demands not at the behest of anyone but out of our own conviction that these issues have to be taken up for resolution.
{Clause a) of SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE in Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th October,1993 between IBA and AIBEA clearly states:
"During
the course of negotiations of service conditions of the workmen
employees in February, 1990 the Indian Banks' Association ( IBA )
agreed to introduce pension scheme in banks for the workmen employees
in lieu of employer's contribution to the Provident Fund. The pension
Scheme agreed by IBA was to be broadly on the Central Government/ the
Reserve Bank of India pattern: details of the scheme were to be worked
out."-
Hence the conviction of AIBEA and UFBU is being backed by this unfulfilled clause of 29 10 1993.}
The following 4 important demands have been taken up by us with the IBA and Government.• Medical Scheme for the retirees
• Improvement in family pension
• 100% DA for pre-Nov. 2002 retirees
• Periodical updation of pensionDue to the consistent efforts of UFBU, for the first time in the industry-level bipartite service condition, IBA has agreed and the proposed medical scheme would provide for continuation of the benefits even after the retirement of an employee or officer. This is a major achievement of the UFBU.Further, it has been agreed that the same scheme would be made applicable to all the past retirees also. This is by no means an ordinary achievement.
{ And it must naturally be on the already agreed pattern of Central Government/ Reserve Bank of India}Regarding improvement in Family pension, we have repeatedly informed everyone that IBA and the Government are very sympathetic to this issue and the cost implications have to be worked out before a final decision is taken. UFBU has informed IBA that the improvements in Family pension should apply not only for the existing employees but for the retirees as well.
{
The implicit tendency to segregate retired employees and existing
employees for the purpose of negotiating for improvements in family
pension shows the mindset of the UFBU that it can basically get
prepared to negotiate only for the benefits of existing employees. Where
as such a classification for a homogeneous group of members of Pension Fund is illegal and arbitrary}
In view of AS15-R, the cost implications of funding the additional fund required cannot not lost sight of. The demand has not been negatived but under serious consideration. From AIBEA we have even offered to negotiate the cost to find an amicable solution.
{
Where is the necessity to negotiate on cost aspects? Is AIBEA / UFBU
not aware of the fact that all cost considerations required for the
implementation of Pension Scheme in lieu of CPF were duly taken care of
under the provisions of Section 10 (7) of Act 5 of 1970 and 1980 , and
also under the provisions of corresponding Principle Regulations 7,
and 11 of the Pension Scheme, 1995?- What is this? Where is the scope
for negotiation on this count alone at all ? Meeting the cost involved
in implementation of the Pension scheme in its entirety is the bounden
responsibility of the IBA under the governing Statute of the
Nationalized Banks as the same is duly provided for under the said
provisions of Section 10(7) of Act 5 of 1970 and 1980.}
Regarding 100% DA for past cases, the IBA and the Government were willing to consider the same. But of late we find that they feel that the matter is subjudice for discussions as some court cases are pending before Supreme Court for which we are not responsible.
(
How can responsibility be disowned by AIBEA when it was the party to
fixing up of the very cut- off date 2002 for implementation of 100% DA
neutralisation ? When the High Court of Kolkatta had already directed
on 04 03 2015 the BOARD of UBI and the MOF -GOI to look into the
illegality of the introduction of a cut-off date for a homogeneous group
of retired employees for its due constitutional rectification in
this regard , how can the AIBEA blink at it in the name of its having no
responsibility for the same claiming the matter to be subjudice ?
Neither AIBEA/UFBU nor the IBA can escape from looking into the removal
of the said cut- off date 2002 for the purpose of 100% DA
neutralisation. As per the Court's direction it is for the IBA to
rectify the anomaly by removing the said cut-off date 2002 with due
approval from GOI . How can AIBEA /UFBU too claim that the matter is
sub judice? Cant a matter pending in the Court be resolved
according to the Constitution of India for protecting the equality of
opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India? Would there be any objection from any Court once such a
correction is brought to its notice? Respecting the Constitution of
India does not tantamount to a contempt of Court . Hence neither IBA
nor UFBU need be afraid of bringing out a correction to the aspect of
100% DA neutralisation for pre 2002 retired employees . This claim for
denial to negotiate on the basis of pending judicial cases is unworthy
of the leadership of a great Trade Union Organisation like AIBEA }
Yesterday only you informed us that the court cases can be withdrawn to pave the way for a solution to this issue.
{ Negotiating Trade Union need not either take shelter under the pretext that the matter is subjudice or
permit the IBA to do so when the cause of the welfare of the retired
employees is of primordial importance before pending litigation. The
Unions can not claim that the litigants are not their mandating members
when it comes to rectification of the mistake committed by them earlier
.}
On the issue of updation of pension, IBA has very serious reservations in view of the cost implications which is very high according to them.
{
Once again Section 10(7) of Act 5 of 1970 and 1980 takes care of this
aspect. No need to bring the cost factor into the picture of
negotiations. COST is not at all a negotiable factor for implementation
of Pension Scheme in Public Sector Banks which are considered as 'State'
as provided for under Article 12 of the Constitution of India . This
fundamental aspect should not be discarded by the knowledgeable
representatives of the UFBU at the table of negotiations.}
So we have asked for the details of number of pensioners, present pension, etc. so that we can work out the cost and fund required for the same and then pursue the matter further. It is a very important issue but also a difficult one to tackle. Even in RBI this issue has not been resolved despite cost not being a problem.
{
Due to apprehension of MOF_GOI that once RBI proposal for Updation
as submitted through its BOARD resolution to the GOI way back in
October 2011 gets approval of GOI, the same rationale should have got to
be adopted by the BOARDS of Nationalised Banks as per Clause a) of
SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE in Bipartite Settlement dated 29 10 1993. The
said proposal of RBI for updation of pension was not rejected by the
GOI so far and still pending with GOI for its favorable consideration.
The RBI Governor, Mr. Rajan had already assured RBI employees that its
resolution shall be followed by him with the MOF, GOI . There shall be
no problem to evolve a Scheme for updation of Pension on the lines of
Existing Regulation 35(1) of Bank Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995 ,
or for that matter it can be evolved on the lines of, and in
consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, if need be.}
All these developments have been periodically informed to you but still you have chosen to be oblivious to all the efforts and constraints of the unions.If your letter is to request for further efforts, it would be viewed accordingly. If otherwise, we will take it on our strides.
{
Issues related to cost considerations have got in built solution
under Section 10(7 ) of Act 5 of 1970 and 1980 wherein the intelligent
interference of IBA and of UFBU is unwarranted. Welfare measures and
Family Pension improvements can easily take place on the Pattern of RBI
and Central Government Pension Schemes in terms of the undertaking
already given by the IBA on 29 10 1993 .What else the grounds that are
needed for the UFBU to get a nod from the IBA? Can't UFBU
indicate/notify the IBA that it has got to approach the CLC in case
the IBA tends to breach its understanding dated 29 10 1993? What is
needed is courage and conviction. Not comfortable and mutually
convenient negotiations while accepting the 'Hobson's Choice' left by
the IBA for the UFBU on the one hand , and deliberately inflicting
avoidable inconvenience and hardship to the hapless followers of he
leadership including the retied fraternity on the other hand.}
All of us know that when various issues and demands are placed before the management, all of them do not get settled fully and in one go. You are not unaware of the same. But then to accuse that UFBU has betrayed, it is too much of a comment.
{
Let the UFBU stand on a firm ground of realities to make the point
straight. For , Pension Scheme is a constant and consistent Statute
approved by the Parliament unlike the periodical wage revision of the
Banking fraternity.}
Please by assured that AIBEA and UFBU are doing what is best possible in the matter.With greetings,
Yours comradely,
C.H.VENKATACHALAM
GENERAL SECRETARY".Dear Comrades , What is needed is real courage and conviction in getting the Truth upheld but not momentary comfort and convenience in relinquishing the legitimate hard earned entitlements.We should not forget our earlier hardships faced by us in securing these Fundamental Rights duly getting them protected by the Artcles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
All the Best.
With Regards.
Katari Satyanarayana "
No comments:
Post a Comment