BANK RETIREES NEWS

UNION BANK RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCITION

Date: 

​17th June,'15​

Friends,

Reactions of Mr. Rajesh Goyal on AIBOC's Circular dated 12.6.'15 re retirees' issues

​    One Mr. Rajesh Goyal has very appropriately reacted against the AIBOC's Circular dated 12.6.'15 regarding retirees' issues not settled in the 10th BP Settlement.

   The same is reproduced here under.

Yours sincerely,

B.G.Raithatha,

General Secretary

                                                                 "Now AIBOC Tries  to Become Turn Coat and To Lure Angry Retirees with Changed Tone and Language

by

Rajesh Goyal  

Contents of AIBOC circular dated 12/6/2015 Our Comments We invite reference to the Record Note dated 25.05.2015 jointly signed by the representatives of IBA and all the 9 Unions/ Associations of Bank Employees/ Officers on the issues pertaining to Bank Retirees along with Joint Note on Salary Revision. 2. While the above Record Note incorporates some of the demands of Retirees referred to in the Charter of Demands and discussed by officers organization with IBA during the process of discussion and IBA's response there to, we would like to put the records straight by furnishing in brief our view pointas under on IBA's response: These do not need any comments as these give only reference to the Record Note signed by IBA and UFBU It is foolishness to now say that Mr Singh wants to put the records straight after signing the Record Note without applying his mind.  [Will IBA now listen to such meek requests  when when UFBU has already  cut their hands by putting signatures on the  Record Note] At the outset we do not accept that no contractual relationship exists between Banks & Retirees and that their demands can be examined only as a "Welfare Measure".  We maintain that payment of Pension cannot be construed as a mere Welfare Measure. As a matter of fact, there are several court judgments upholding that pension is a deferred portion of the compensation for the service rendered. In landmark "Narkara Case", the Hon. Supreme Court has held that "Pension is a statutory, inalienable, equally enforceable right that has been earned by the sweat of brow. As such it should be fixed, revised and modified/ changed in the ways not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees." Besides, the Pension Regulations have been framed under section 19(1) of Banking Companies (Acquisition & transfer of undertakings) Act 1970/1980 and as such the relationship between Banks & Retirees is a statutory one. Officers' Service Regulations/ Bi-partite Settlement provisions for workmen, inter- alia, provide for post- retirement benefits including Pension/ PF/ Gratuity etc. These are in the nature of statutory obligations on the part of Banks. In these circumstances, how can it be inferred that there is no contractual relationship between Banks & Retirees/ Pensioners? Moreover in case of officers, Officers' Service Regulations/ Disciplinary Rules providing for disciplinary proceedings after retirement will lose the test of validity before law in the absence of contractual relationship. It is strange that now AIBOC says it does not accept 'no contractual relationship exists between Banks and Retires'.  How come such a change of mind and heart has taken place within a fortnight? Did all nine wise  union leaders were fooled by IBA to this extent that none of them realized what they were signing. The landmark famous Nakara case is well known and should be known to each and every union leaders.   We have quoted this case in number of our earlier articles. The words "pension should be fixed, revised and modified / changed in the ways not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees" should have formed part of the Record Date.    It is of no use now to cry over the spilled milk.  All these postures are only to cover up their misdeeds in selling the interests of retired employees by signing the Record Note. It is strange that now after hue and cry by various retiree bankers, Mr Harvinder Singh has realized about  all the rules and regulations which exist since decades. It is shame that after selling the interests of retiree bankers,  they are trying to do the act of "Sau Chuhe Kha ka Billi Haj to gaye".  They have signed an illegal "Record Note" and are likely to be in soup when retirees go to Courts. Like wise in the absence of any contractual relations with Pensioners, clause 48 of the Pension Regulations 1995 i.e. right to proceed against retired employees will also not have any sanctity. As regards comparison with Central Government Pension Scheme, we specifically bring to your notice that Pension Regulations under the head Residuary Provisions, specifically stipulates that "in the matter of application of these Regulations regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Services Rules 1972 or Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981 applicable for Government Employees with such modifications as the Bank with previous sanction of Central Government, may from time to time determine". It is clearly understood that Bank Employees Pension Scheme has been drawn primarily on the basis of Pension Scheme applicable to Central Government Employees/ RBI Employees. Hence comparison with the Central Government, Employees pension Scheme is not out of Place. It is a great change of mind in merely within fornight of signing the Record Note.   Now he seems to have become wiser when he says that clause 48 will become illegal if there is not contractual relationship between retire employees with banks. Other issues of central government were too well known to all the UFBU leaders and IBA when they signed the Record Note. Referring to IBA's response to the demands referred to in the Record Note, we have to state as under: While on several aspects of pension improvement, IBA has been repeatedly forwarding the  plea of cost burden but at no point of time during negotiations, authentic data has been presented in support of its contention. On the contrary, authentic pension fund data categorically reveals that as on 31.03.2014, the corpus of Pension Fund stood at about Rs1,14,000/- crores. More importantly Pension Funds of Banks are in surplus consecutively over  the years and such surplus is growing year by year despite the fact that Banks have failed to provide for the required sum in pension funds as agreed in Bipartite Settlements . Under these circumstances, demands of retirees for improvement in Family Pension in line with RBI, 100% DA neutralization to pre Nov 2002 retirees as also updation of Pension, cannot be delayed/ denied. b) We may point out that Bank Employees Pension Regulations specifically provide for updation of Pension. We invite refere nce to Regulation 35 (1) thereof which reads as under; "Basic Pension and additional pension wherever applicable shall be updated as per formula given in Appendix I" As a matter of fact, such updation has already been given effect earlier for the pensioners retired prior to 01.11.1987, who were positioned on par with retirees under 01.11.1987 Wage Settlement. In view of the above, updation of Pension has a statutory basis and it becomes a statutory obligation. c)In the matter of 100% DA neutralization for retirees prior to 01.11.2002 for which IBA was positive during discussion, there have been several speaking judgments and favourable court orders. Though the matter is still subjudice, IBA should settle the matter positively so that the expensive litigation can be put to rest once and for all. But waiting for conclusion of court proceedings will only add to the delay denying justice to pensioners who are above the  age of 72-75 years and are anxiously waiting for the justice. d) The issue of Pension to left overs also a vital one. The category of those retired compulsorily  and the resignees have been denied benefits due to strict interpretation of instructions from  the Government in June, 2012. Existing Pension Regulations categorically provide for pension to those compulsorily retired from service. Denial of pension option to them is violative of the very existing Pension Regulations itself. Denial of Pension option to Resignees has also been tested through litigation and several judgments including the one in Vijaya Bank Case, is a clear pointer that they cannot be denied pensionafter the stipulated period. In fact consequent upon such court verdict, several resignees have already been conceded the benefit of pension option. It is also pertinent to note that the number of those retired compulsorily as also those resigned from Banks (after putting in requisite pensionable service) is very small and the cost cannot stand in the way of extending benefits to them. e)Apart from the above, there are still several issues of pension, which need to be discussed and sorted out In these columns Mr Harvinder Singh has very clearly indicated that the demands of the retires  are genuine.    However, he has failed to give even one reason why they have not discussed these demands for more than 30 months and confronted IBA with facts.   At the fag end of the negotiations UFBU SECRETLY  signed the Record Note about which cadre of any union was not even had faintest idea.    The signing of such a document SECRETLY  indicates  only one of the following reasons: (a)Mr Harvinder Singh and other team members of UFBU very well knew about the demands of retires and the rational behind the legality of such demands, but intentionally signed the Record Note for some unknown considerations (exchange of money or black mailing by IBA on some other issues;  OR (b) None of them was aware of these and they were such fools that they were not aware of the legal court judgements and were only awakened when websites like AllBankingSolutions.com exposed them in next 48 hours and they realized they folly. The reasons for doing this can only be told by either Mr Harvinder Singh or other players at UFBU who are keeping silent on the sell off the interest of retireed bankers completely and leaving them in larch as to who will negotiate for these  demands  OR there will be no negotiations  as in the wisdom of IBA and UBFU there is no contractual relationship between pensioners and the banks.   Thus banks may are free to leave them at the mercy of the God and may throw some peanuts in the name of welfare measures  (as indicated in the Record Note. Another interesting  revealing in the letter is about the pension corpus.   He clearly charges IBA that although IBA has been raising the boggy of cost burden but never shared the authentic data with UFBU.   Then questions arise, how UFBU concurred with the IBA that there is shortage of funds. Now Mr Singh has clearly revealed thatauthentic pension fund data categoricallyreveals that as on 31.03.2014, the corpus of Pension Fund stood at about Rs1,14,000/- crores. More importantly Pension Funds of Banks are in surplus consecutively over  the years and such surplus is growing year by year despite the fact that Banks have failed toprovide for the required sum in pension funds as agreed in Bipartite Settlements This charge by Harvinder Singh should clearly put the IBA on the back foot. We, therefore, request you to take a positive view and hold discussion on all the issues of retirees on the basis of authentic facts, data and figures. On our part, we are also willing to exchange facts and figures so that a meaningful dialogue can take place with a view to resolving  these issues. After signing the Record Note, this plea by AIBOC is nothing but eyewash and to assuage the feelings of the angry retired bankers.