WE BANKERS - Hurrah ! First & must read category blog by WE BANKERS : HOW & WHY OF BANKERS TURNED TO PATHETIC STATE? Why pay commission & parity with central govt is only solution ? We r human being and real asset patriotic banker citizens; not table chair carrot radish to be bargained ? Fourth; IBA -UFBU both unconstitutional bodies r deciding law abiding bankers? ( courtesy : good senior bankers). Neither we r anarchist nor we r thieves; liers; anti bankers; goons like unions. This is a movements of Nationalistic mature; intellectual ; hardworking and responsible class. At one time, Bank Employees were getting fair wages as comparable to similarly placed employees and were enjoying respectable position in the society. Fixation of fair wages was done after taking due care of nature of work performed by bank employees and element of additional risk involved in performance of their duties. Now at present, the position of Bank Employees has been degraded substantially as they are getting much less wages as compared to employees of Central/State Government as also employees of other Sectors. It is more painful that factors responsible for placing the bank employees in present pathetic situation undoubtedly and clearly are attributable to Retired Leaders. These retired leaders became selfish after retirement and in order to gain benefits, they colluded with Indian Banks Association and agreed illegally for something which is still harming the bank employees till date and would continue to harm in future too if not rectified. We give below the main reason behind present low salary of bank employees making their lives miserable and pathetic: On 29.10.1993 a Settlement got signed for providing the benefit of Pension. By then, Bank Employees except employees of State Bank of India, Allahabad Bank and few other Banks were getting Contributory Provident Fund and Gratuity as Terminal Benefits. Benefit of Pension has been provided to bank employees in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund. Interesting fact about this settlement is that it was made effective w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Perhaps it is the solitary instance when date of effect and applicability of settlements was made retrospective to go back by more than 7 and half years. Why this was done? Because most of the leaders representing the bank employees in negotiations were the leaders who had retired during this time. Thus they were having self interest of benefitting themselves by way of benefit of pension. Indian Banks Association representing the Employer Banks took advantage of development of selfish interest in leaders representing the employees and blackmailed them to agree to link contribution to the pension fund from the wages, wage revision arrears and to the profits in lieu of making Pension Settlement effective w.e.f. 01.01.1986. This clever move and tactics adopted by Indian Banks Association in connivance with leaders deprived the Bank. Employees from equality in the matter of Payment of Pension and also from the sameprinciples Pension is being paid to Central and State Government Employees. In Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 in Clause 2 ii it has been provided that Pension Fund will be constituted by transferring Bank’s Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest there on to the Pension Fund and there was no provision that employees shall have to pay any amount other than the one as provided in Clause 2.ii. After the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993, the Government of India issued a Notification and thereafter member Banks of the Indian Banks Association published Pension Regulations for their employees, after consultation with Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government,which is known as Bank Employees Pension Regulations 1995, thereby making these pension regulations Statutory in nature. Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Regulations provide for provisions for Composition of the pension fund wherein Regulation 7 provides as under: “The Fund shall consist of the following namely:- 1. The contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten per cent per month of the pay of the employee; 2. The accumulated contributions of the bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of employees; 3. The amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations.; 4. The investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon; 5. The amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund; 6. The additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these regulations; 7. Any income from investments of the amounts credited to the Fund 8. The amount consisting of contribution of the bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee” In terms of Regulation 11 of the Bank Employees Pension Regulations , it is mandatory for the individual member banks to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund every financial year, on the 31 day of March, and make such additional annual contributions to the Pension Fund as may be required to secure payment of benefits under these regulations. This regulation also does not envisage any contribution from the employees towards the pension fund and the entire responsibility of ensuring adequacy of funds solely rests on the individual banks. In pursuance of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and the Pension Regulations 1995, a number of employees opted for Pension and they became members of the Pension Scheme and they had to surrender only the Banks Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with interest accrued thereon to the Pension Fund. As such the employees who opted for Pension in the year 1993 and 1995, no amount other than Banks Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest has been charged. Subsequent to the introduction of Pension Regulations, the bank employees had wage revisions during the years, 1995 (6 BPS, 2000(7 BPS and 2005 (8 BPS) by way of Bipartite Settlements. During the 7 Bipartite Settlement, Indian Banks Association imposed that a share of the wage revision increases to be passed on to all the employees to augment the pension fund, and the same was agreed to by unions in utter violation of the Pension Regulations against the interest of bank employees as these Regulations don’t envisage any contribution by the employees. During the 7 BPS, the increased cost of pension was worked out at 26.5%. After reducing the statutory contribution of 10% by the banks, the balance of 16.5% was shared between employees and the banks @ 8.25% + 8.25% (Fifty/Fifty). Thus from out of the wage revision offered, this pension fund gap was filled and the balance amount was offered as revised wages to the employees. It is pertinent to note that even the PF optees had to forego a portion of their wage revision for building up this pension fund, as a result of the act of the Indian Banks Association. Similarly in the 8 Bipartite Settlement of 2005, the increased cost of Pension of 30.5% was shared as 10% (statutory contribution), 9.25% by the employees and 11.25% by the banks. Shared at 45:55) and thus it can be seen that all the employees irrespective of their option had contributed to the increased cost of pension. Thereafter on 27.04.2010, Indian Banks Association and different apex unions of the UFBU entered into a Pension Settlement under the provisions of Industrial Disputes (Central) Act, 1947 in respect of extending 2 option of Pension to those employees who did not opt for Pension in the year 1993/1995 and had thus continued to remain a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. That Clause 1 & 2 of the terms of the Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 provides the relevant provisions for opting Pension in respect of working employees as on the date of the Settlement. Relevant provisions of the terms of the settlement is quoted below: “(1) All workmen employees who are in the service of the Bank as on date of this settlement who exercise option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of this Settlement will contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of the Settlement between the parties dated 27.04.2010 an amount of Rs.878 Crores towards their share in the amount of Rs.1800 Crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs.6000 crores. The said amount was worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November 2007 for individual workmen employees.” Against this pension settlement of 27-Apr-2010, as many as 17 Writ Petitions were filed in various High Courts throughout the country by various groups of bank employees, questioning the constitutional validity of this settlement as it violated the sacred principle of “Equality before the eye of the law”. All these writ petitions have now been transferred and pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. By Clause 2 of the Pension Settlement, IBA and these unions excluded the employees who joined the service of the Bank on or after 01.04.2010. Provisions of Clause 2 of the Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 is reproduced here under for your perusal and understanding: “2 (i) The Existing Pension Scheme will not be applicable to those who joined the service of the bank on or after01.04.2010.” (ii) Workmen/Officers joining the service of the bank on or after 01.04.2010 shall be eligible for the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, the Bank will be introducing for them. The Defined Contributory Pension Scheme proposed to be introduced for them will be one as governed by the provisions of New Pension System introduced for employees of Central Government w.e.f. 01.01.2004 and as modified from time to time. The Scheme shall be regulated and administered by the Pension Fund Regulatory & Development Authority (PFRDA). (iii) The workmen/officers joining the service of the bank on or after 01.04.2010 shall contribute 10% of Pay & Dearness Allowance towards the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme and the Bank shall make a matching contribution in respect of these officers. (iv) There shall be no separate Provident Fund for officers joining service of Bank on or after 01.04.2010. Thus, it is evidently and undoubtedly clear that Indian Banks Association in connivance with these leaders entered into an exclusive settlement in respect of those who were not in existence at that time and were not members ofthese Unions, while they had a better beneficial settlement for themselves. As such these unions were having no locus standi, right or mandate from those employees who were to enter into the services of the bank on 01.04.2010 and thereafter and as such it is bad in law. Process for wage revision through 10 Bipartite Settlement is in progress and negotiations are going on between Indian Banks Association and these apex Unions. It is reliably learnt that funding gap which was estimated at 6000 has been worked out many times more than the estimated cost and has been produced by Indian Banks Association before the negotiating leaders of these Unions while placing the consolidated Balance Sheet. It is further learned that IBA has demanded sharing of 30% gap in pension funding as per terms of the Settlement dated 27.04.2010 on providing Second Option of Pension. These leaders have consented to this sharing of the cost of Pension. It is because of this reason that Indian Banks Association has offered a nominal and insignificant increase of just 5% in the beginning which has now gone to the extent of 11% at present. One of the demands put forth by the Unions relates to updating of the Pension which has never been revised since signing of the First Settlement on pension in 1993. It has been learnt that cost of updating of Pension has also been agreed to be funded from profits thereby adversely affecting the funds available for wage revision. A large number of employees have joined the member banks from 01.04.2010 in respect of whom exclusion from existing Pension Scheme was settled illegally without any authorization and mandate from them as they had not joined the services of the Bank on 01.04.2010 and therefore were not members of the bank. These employees account for about 25% of the existing workforce and there number would continue to increase because of rapid retirement of existing employees. It is estimated that by 2015, percentage of these employees in total number of employees would be around 75%. Unions have not taken care to include representatives of this specific class of employees who have joined on 01.04.2010 or thereafter to take part in negotiation process. Agreeing to share pension cost of pension scheme from funds available for wage revision would impact and adversely affect the existing employees. In other words, those to whom benefits of pension scheme is not available would be subjected to bear the cost of pension and if updating of pension takes place it would further affect the prospects of getting fair wage. Though we are not against updating of Pension of our Seniors which they rightfully deserve because of the fact that pension of Central Government Employees gets updated at the time of implementation of recommendation of the Pay Commission, why these seniors should be forced to live their retired life on nominal pension, yet we are against sharing of the pension cost out of funds available for wage revision as it is not permitted either by Sastry Award referred to above or by Pension Regulations. It requires investigation and scrutiny to find out whether leaders negotiating on behalf of bank employees are lawfully elected office bearers of the unions having authority and mandate to negotiate and take decision or not? Many of these leaders are those who have got retired. As per Constitution of these unions only those employed in respective bank can be an ordinary member of the Union. As regards outsiders becoming member of the Union, Constitution of Unions provides that except those who are ordinary members, anyone can be admitted as Special Member of the Union with the consent of the Executive Committee of the Union. Thus, it is evidently and undoubtedly clear that no one can be an ordinary member and special member at one and same time. In other words, an Office Bearer of the Union ceases to be member of the Union the moment he gets retired from the services of a bank and consequently also as the office bearer of the Union. The question of becoming Special Member would arise only after retirement and for that such retired employee is required to apply for special membership of the union as also consent of the executive of the union. Those who were principal office bearer of the Union for years together abolished the system of election in the union and introduced system of selection in a clever manner to gain control over the Union. These influential and powerful leaders after gaining control over the Union make themselves special member of the Union before retirement. Such becoming of special member was in respect of non existing matter in as much as that question of becoming a special member would arise only when they get retired from the services of the bank and submit an application for becoming special member and executive of the Union considers such application and decides to admit them as Special Member. In this regard, reference may be made of the leading case of State Bank of India v. Sri M. R. Awasthi decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein in identical and similar situation, apex court held election of Sri M. R. Awasthi as invalid, illegal and inoperative. These retired leaders occupying the key positions in the Unions of Bank Workmen have formed an Organization which is known as United Forum of Bank Employees, which they call as umbrella organization of Bank Employees. United Form Of Bank Unions so formed is neither a registered Organization registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 nor it has been formed after adopting resolution in the General Body meetings of the respective unions. This organization UFBU exists only at the apex Industry Level and not at Bank or ground level. If it would have been an organization representing bank employees then Bipartite Settlement would have been entered into between IBA and UFBU but that is not the case. At the time of Signing of the Settlement these leaders show and sign the settlement as separate identity and put their signature as representative of particular unions. Charter of Demands discussed at National Executive Committees of respective Unions has been changed by these leaders in the meeting of so called UFBU and they are calling it common charter of Demands. Thus these retired leaders are using this invalid and illegal Forum having no sanction of the members of the Unions for their own convenience and have changed the Charter of Demands without seeking consent of the members of the respective unions. Not only this they are not convening meetings of the National Executive to give details of the negotiations being done by them with IBA and deciding everything sitting in a Hotel and calling it as meeting of the UFBU. If Indian Banks Association is not objecting on such sinister combination of retired leaders in the name of UFBU it’s because it is convenient for IBA to blackmail these leaders citing decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sri M. R. Awasthi and threatening them that if they will not accede to its dictates it will refuse to negotiate with them. Thus, this Forum known as United Forum of Bank Employees does not really represent the Bank Employees and has become a forum to be-fool bank employees. These retired leaders are now working against the interest of the Bank Workmen in connivance with the Indian banks Association which is proved from the fact that position of Bank Employees is worsening with every successive Bipartite Settlement. Bank Employees who were at one time getting wages more than the wages of Central Government Employees because of bearing of more risk are now relegated to a pathetic place. Thus, it is evidently clear that UFBU does not represent the Bank Employees and it is nothing but an association of retired leaders who are no more espousing the causes of bank workmen or working for their betterment. These leaders are communicating the outcome of the negotiations to the members in the form of 2 or 3 line SMS. They are reducing the demand for increase in wages as per their sweet will without discussing the same in meeting of the union and without seeking authority and consent of members. They are more interested to serve their own interest in connivance with Indian Banks Association than that of bank employees. Above situation has created volcanic reaction in banking industry. There is growing resentment amongst the banks employees in general and young bank employees in particular over the way the drama of negotiation is being staged at the apex level. Under these circumstances, young bank employees who have joined banking industry on 01.04.2010 and thereafter decided to lead from the front in an organized manner irrespective of their cadre or union affiliation and decided to demonstrate at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on 13 September. More than 1500 representative of young bankers from various parts of the country assembled and participated in the demonstration which was followed by meeting of these representatives. At the said demonstration, a memorandum has been submitted to Hon’ble Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi ji as also to Hon’ble Finance Minister. An online petition has also been signed by more than 5000 bank employees from all over the country, It has been unanimously decided in the meeting of the representatives of the employees that all out efforts would be made for resolution of issues relating to bank employees in peaceful manner and involvement of the Government would also be sought. It has also been decided to organise state level units which has received encouraging response throughout thee country. The impact generated by the Morcha at Jantar Mantar is now picking up momentum. For meaningful and purposeful immediate resolution, we demand: That in order to remove the possibility of any connivance of bankers with the leaders and with a view to ensure justice in the matter of fixation of wages, present system of fixation of wages through bilateral negotiations must be abolished as it has harmed bank employees more than benefiting them and Bank Employees must be brought under the purview of Pay Commission. That wages of Bank Employees must be fixed by taking into account the wages being paid to Central Government Employees in identical and similar situation and arrears must be paid from 01.11.2012 i.e. the date from which bank employees have become eligible and entitled for enhanced wages. That Bank Employees must be paid same pension and must be governed by same rules as is available to Central Government Employees. That Pension of the retired Bank Employees must be updated and revised in the same manner it has been revised in case of Central Government Employees. That Bank Employees must be allowed to work for 5 days in the week in the same manner Central Government Employees are being allowed. That bank employees must be provided with same facilities and privileges as are available to Central Government Employees.
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 10:19:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015