We Need CPC , We Don't Need Bipartite Settlement

Why do I bat for a separate Pay Commission for Bank Staff? -By Pannvalan

I am surprised to see some persons who still argue for the necessity of continuing the Bipartite Negotiation mechanism in banks, for improvement in wages, other benefits and the existing service conditions of staff.

The basic premises of such people are totally wrong. They have some imaginary fears about the composition, functions and limitations of a Pay Commission. They have a negative impression about the Commission and nurture a suspicion about its usefulness and effectiveness. They openly argue that a Pay Commission cannot satisfy the aspirations of the beneficiaries to the maximum possible extent.

To allay their fears and disprove their suspicions, I present my detailed views here.
A Pay Commission is usually headed by a retired justice of the Supreme Court/High Court. He is assisted by some eminent persons of immaculate calibre, with long experience and proven capabilities. They are from diverse backgrounds like Finance, HRD, Labour, Law, Accountancy, Secretarial Practice and the one relating to the field of the intended beneficiaries. Ideal size of the Commission will be 5 and it may go up to 7.

Unlike in the bipartite negotiation process, suggestions and proposals are openly invited from all, through the official website of the Commission, as soon as it is constituted and it starts functioning. Individuals can send their submissions directly to the Commission, through post and also in person. All submissions must be in writing. Such submissions may be in the form of a well drafted ‘Charter of Demands’ or simple views and proposals. If reasoning is also adduced alongside these proposals, they will carry more weight and have the prospect of being considered favourably.

Any individual or a group of individuals or a registered association of staff or the federation of multiple unions are permitted to submit their demands, views and proposals to the commission directly. It is very important that the identity of such individuals/groups is properly established, beyond any doubt. Their contact particulars like name, occupation/designation, full address, phone numbers, email ID etc. are furnished by them in all their communication.

If necessary, the individuals concerned or the representatives of the groups/associations/ federation are invited to depose before the Commission and present their submission in person, with supporting documents. They shall go prepared to answer the queries, if any, from the members of the Commission. Though it is not like a court like atmosphere, everything is recorded and the full text of the proceedings is signed by all concerned at the end of every day.

People who meet the Commission members need not have any fear or inhibition. They can talk freely, of course within the boundaries. Everything takes place in an open, democratic atmosphere.

The whole exercise is so simple, easy and transparent from the beginning to the end that nobody can find fault with.

One more beauty of the process is, the same person/group can send as many proposals as they like, provided each of them is supplementary to their other submissions and are not inconsistent and self-contradictory. Nobody is denied a second opportunity.

Every Pay Commission has a fixed tenure and it has to submit is report, with its detailed observations and recommendations within this time limit. This is a very important feature of this process.

Occasionally, an interim report is submitted by the Commission, if the process of preparing its final report takes a longer time than anticipated. If deemed necessary, extension of the Commission’s tenure is also sought and allowed.

If you want to know more about this, go through the voluminous reports of various pay commissions at the centre and in states. They are accompanied by a good number of exhibits and documentary evidences. Even in banking industry, you can go through the Sastry Award and Desai Award reports in full.

These reports are prepared with due diligence and extreme care, after going through a lot of inputs patiently and methodologically. Thus, the exercise is totally professional and scientific.

Besides the beneficiaries in service, the retired personnel are also encouraged to present their demands and views to the Commission. This provision is absent in the Bipartite Negotiation process. In the aftermath of introduction of pension in banks, the necessity of presenting an opportunity to the retired personnel is felt more, especially in the matters affecting their interests.

It is true that the final findings and recommendations of the Commission may not give 100% satisfaction to all. However, they will be the best possible in the prevailing circumstances.

Icing on the Cake:

Even after the report is submitted by the Commission, the government will give another opportunity to all the registered groups/associations of staff to present their comments and grievances by meeting the government officials, so that the government will be in a position to take a fair and balanced view. It has happened in many cases that the government has awarded better pay scales and more benefits to the beneficiaries than what was actually recommended by the Pay Commission, before notifying the report in the official gazette.

Now, you tell me honestly, do you still consider the Bipartite Mechanism as superior and the best?

In the present day's circumstances, the relevance and effectiveness of Bipartite Mechanism have died, as they are conducted in a totally closed and secret atmosphere, without taking the beneficiaries into confidence. The views and aspirations of the ground level staff are never taken into account by IBA nor the negotiating team from the registered Trade Unions.

Are we prepared to conduct a referendum on this issue - Bipartite Negotiation versus Pay Commission?

Date: 23-01-2016 pannvalan