Source :http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/
IBA Now
Plays Another Cunning Act In Their Circular Relating to “Payment of
superannuation benefits to employees who were inflicted punishment of Removal
from Service or Discharge from Service”
by
R K Pathak
IBA is known for entering into
agreements with Unions contrary to the provisions of Pension Regulation which
does not withstand the judicial scrutiny. The most stinging observation
in this regard was made by India’s highest Court, Supreme
Court, in Bank of Baroda Vs S K Kool (BANK LEADERS and other bankers who
are interested to read this judgment in full can download the same by clicking
on the link http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/Legal-Cases/BOB-Dec2013-CRS.pdf)
at page 11-12, wherein judges commented
that “The Bipartite Settlement tends to provide a punishment which gives
superannuation benefits otherwise due. The construction by the employer
shall give nothing to the employees in any event. Will it not be a fraud Bipartite Settlement? Obviously it
would be”.
Do IBA and UFBU and bankers need more
evidence than the above harsh comments of Supreme Court that what they
concluded in BPS was a fraud on the employees.
Inspite of such a wrath of SC,
the banks / IBA still continued its anti labour policy and filed review
in SC and the same is clear from the IBA Circular referred above & relevant
para is as under:-
“Based on the legal opinion obtained by
the Bank, a Review Petition against the Order dated 11.12.2013 was filed by the
Bank. In the meanwhile, another similar case pertaining to Mr. Girish
Shukla, (SCA 9092/2008) before the High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad, the
decision dated 15.4.2014 had been pronounced against the Bank based on the
decision of Kool’s case. Bank filed SLP before the Supreme Court against
the Order dated 15.4.14 so that, subsequently, this case also could be clubbed
together with the review / reference petition filed in Kool’s case before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Based at the
request of Bank of Baroda to IBA to implead itself in the SLP. As the
matter in dispute was having industry-wide ramifications and affecting all
PSBs, the managing Committee at its meeting held on 30.5.2014, had acceded to
the request of the Bank and IBA impleaded itself in the SLP.
In the meanwhile, the Review Petition
in the case of Mr. Kool came up for review before the Supreme Court on
12.11.2014 and the Review Petition was dismissed vide Order dated
12.11.2014. In the matter of Girish Shukla also, the Supreme Court
has passed an Order dated 27.4.2015 as under: “In
view of the decision of this Court dated 11.12.2013 in Bank of Baroda vs.
S K Kool, (dead) through Lrs. & Anr. 2014 (2) SCC 715, we find no merit in
these petitions which are accordingly dismissed”.
After
dismissal of review petition, a prudent person / organisation (where IBA too is
party) should have immediately suo moto advised banks to implement the Judgment
of SC universally to all employees who were removed from service, compulsorily
retired or discharged from the service. But it did not act
immediately. But fearing another back lash from the judiciary, IBA
has now issued circular No. CIR/HR
&IR/KU/M1/1004 dated June 30, 2015.[Click here to read
the contents of this circular sent by IBA to all Bank Chiefs[Click here
to read the contents of this circular sent by IBA to all Bank Chiefs. www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/Legal-Cases/IBA-circular-30062015-Kool-Case.pdf
]
In this circular
dated 30th June, 2015, IBA has cunningly advised as under, which will
only lead to another round of litigations and delay for pension to eligible
officers under the said categories. In the circular IBA says:
“The matter was placed before the Managing Committee
of IBA at its meeting held on 26.6.2015 for discussion. The Committee,
after deliberation, suggested that banks which are parties to the Bipartite
Settlement dated 10.4.2002/27.5.2002 may consider implementation of the
above judgement of the Apex Court and IBA to initiate suitable amendments in
Regulation 22 of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 as far as
workmen employees are concerned”.
It is crystal clear
from the circular of IBA that IBA was bent upon to issue the above circular as
the SLP & review petition filed by BOB in the matter of S K Kool &
Girish Shukla have been dismissed.
Now as
consequence of the circular of IBA, most of the Banks, without applying mind, will implement these guidelines for award staff
only contrary to the fact that SC did not differentiate among the
employees as officer and award staff.
However, let me also remind our readers
that as per BEPR 1995 (regulation 2 n) "employee" means any person
employed in the service of the Bank, whether as a workman on full time work on
permanent basis or on part-time work on permanent basis on scale wages or as an
officer and who opts and is governed by these regulations, but does not include
a person employed either on contract basis or daily wage basis or on
consolidated wages;”
Now question arises, if, as proposed by
IBA, by amending the regulation 22 “Forfeiture of past service” for workmen employees who were removed from
service, compulsorily retired or discharged from the service, will it be
legally enforceable against only workmen employees who have been forced to
resign in absence of concept of VRS [ as admitted by IBA in its communication
to DFS vide their communication dated 06/08/2012] & also in absence of
provision of resignation by workmen employees in bipartite settlement? [refer
shastry award clause 522]
Attention of IBA [which now
people prefer to call as INTELLIGENCE BANKRUPT’S ASSOCIATION]
officials is also drawn to following facts in the matter of ANDHRA BANK as
under:-
- In WP 1033 of 2011 Y Shivaji Vs Andhra Bank, petitioner was scale III officer when punishment of CRS was imposed on him in 2004.
- In WP 9069 of 2011 Sreeram Ramamurthy Vs Andhra Bank, petitioner was scale II officer when punishment of CRS was imposed on him on 18/03/2009.
In both the above
referred WP, AP High Court directed Andhra Bank to pay the Pension to
Petitioners (remember they were officers)
- In the WA [905 of 2012] filed by the Bank, Division Bench upheld the order passed by lower Court & dismissed the Writ appeal of the Bank on 8/8/2013
- SLP [35389 of 2013] filed by Andhra Bank against the order too was dismissed by SC on 05/09/2014.
- Review Petition [2954 of 2014] was too dismissed on 21/01/2015.
Now, it is fact that Bank had released
the pension to Smt. Shivaji Yarasuri vide their communication
No.666/03/PEN/01657 dated 12/02/2015. (we are holding the letter of the bank
for the time being).
It is needless to mention that
judgments of Supreme Court are binding on the lower Courts & State under
article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Hope Banks, so called autonomous bodies
, which are “ STATE” will follow the judgment of SC to all the employees as
defined in regulation 2 n of BEPR and not as interpreted & advised by IBA.
I can only
request UFBU members & Retiree organisations to find time to read & act
FAST in the matter.
P.S
: Similar to 6 a, 6 b, 6c, 6d provision of bipartite settlement on
Punishment , regulation 4 H, I, J also provision for officers under Officer
Employees’ (discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976. More over in
absence of making specific provision of punishment without superannuation
benefit, beneficial interpretation of regulation 4 makes it clear eligibility
of SCE all superannuation benefit unless ordered by the disciplinary authority
in the order imposing the punishment.
Comments by
Rajesh Goyal:
The
above article sent by Mr R K Pathak is being published after minor
additional inputs, clearly indicates as to how IBA and UFBU conclude agreements
which even Supreme Court refers as Fraud on Employees. Now once
again the letter sent by IBA to all banks contains paragraphs which are not in
line with the essence of the Supreme Court verdicts. This will
create different rules for pension for employees and officers.
This is high time
that UFBU (specially leaders of officers union) put their foot down and stop
IBA in its cunning moves to harass the officers who are being denied pension on
flimsy grounds and forced to go to Courts and fight cases with meager means and
falling health.
Although 7 days
have passed since this circular was issued, but we have yet to read any
reactions from UFBU or Officers union. We at
AllBankingSolutions.com will be waiting for the response of officer union
leaders. They need to take up the issue
seriously and not merely complete a formality by sending a letter to IBA.
Link:http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Wage-Revision/Legal-Cases/IBA-Cunning-Game-Retired-Bankers.htm
