Winners or sinners ? You decide BY Sri Venugopal

WINNERS OR SINNERS?         ACHIEVERS OR LOSERS?

Contributed  by Sri Venugopal cheriyachanaseril

bank unions claim : “We achieved second option for pension”

What did they achieve:

1.   They agreed that pension need be paid from 27.11.2009 to the retired when statute says that it shall be paid from date of retirement regulation 52 (1).

2.   They agreed that unions will bear the cost of pension as to:

§  2.8 times revised pay for November, 2007 by serving employees / officers

§  56 percent of CPF and interest by retired employees

When regulation 5 (3) said that bank shall be the contributor to the Pension Fund and shall ensure that adequate sums are placed in it to enable the Trustees to pay due benefits under the Regulations and regulation 11 stipulated additional contributions annually on the basis of Actuarial valuation.

3.    In the previous settlements too, they agreed that out of the load factor, a portion be apportioned for pension and the residue alone need be paid as wage increase when regulations determined the Bank as the contributor.

4.    When government directed that regulation 22 (4) (b) shall be amended by deleting the clause for forfeiture of past service and to give effect to it, { effect can be given only by granting fresh option  to those who could not opt when the deleted clause was present in the regulations } vide letter F No.4/8/4/95-IR dated 24.12.1997, bank unions did not know about it. 

5.   Bank unions did not know the purpose of promulgating the Bank (Employees’) Pension (Amendment) Regulations, 1998, as per the letter F No.4/8/4/95-IR dated 24.12.1997 under which an option for pension was remaining due and secured it through the settlement / Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 with  frills.

6.   Bank unions do not know that the Bank (Employees’) Pension (Amendment) Regulations,1998 is still in force and the option under it can be claimed since it cannot be repealed as amendments to regulations that prejudice what is done earlier under a regulation is impermissible under section 19.1 and 19.4 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 / 1980.

7.   What is preventing bank unions from challenging the breach of conclusion 7 in the settlement and conclusion 10 in the Joint Note agreeing to carry out the amendment to regulations pursuant the Act?

8.   Boards of Banks have no powers to make / amend regulations that are inconsistent with the Act or Pension Scheme. But when banks are notifying amendments inconsistent with the Pension Scheme to cover up wrongs done through the Settlement / Joint Note, that too without tabling the amendments before the Houses of the Parliament for a period of 30 days and obtaining the assent of the Houses as mandated under section 19.4 of the Act, why should bank unions shy out from challenging  the wrongs.

9.   Regulation 3 determines last date for option as 26.01.1996.  Pension Fund can pay pension to those who opted on or before this date.  But banks paid pension to those who opted after this date resulting in conversion of Pension Funds.  Banks are now trapped by IBA, the banking intelligentsia.  

10.     Regulation 5 (2) stipulate payment of pension / in accordance with the Regulations only.  But banks paid pension on the basis of the Joint Note which is conversion of Pension Funds.  It is now for the Banks to amend the regulations and to escape from the trap.

11.     Apex Court held in order dated 13.02.2018 in Civil Appeal 5525 of 2012 viz. Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs. G Palani & Ors  that regulations, having been framed under powers conferred by Section 19 (2) (f) of the Act of 1970 have statutory force and are binding and they could not have been supplanted by any executive fiat or order or Joint Note which has no statutory basis and the Joint Note could not have taken away the rights that were available under the Pension Regulations of 1995.

12.         The Hon’ble Court also said that right to receive pension was treated as property under Articles 31 (1) and 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution attesting to the fact that Banks are wrong in holding the deferred wages of the employees in the Pension Fund when the Pension Funds of all banks have annual growth enough to contain three times pension to all the pensioners.

13.         Bank unions has no resentment when iba an organizational nullity with no registration under any statute, an illegal association in terms of section 11 of the Indian Companies Act and not recognized either by the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 / 1980 or by Pension Regulations is regulating the Pension Regulations overriding the legislature of India, the Executive viz. the Government and the Reserve Bank of India which are the authorities.

14.         Bank unions are, by signing agreements with the illegal association of bank chiefs, giving accreditation to it without protecting the interests of the members.  When iba said that there is no contractual relationship for banks with retired employees, bank unions ticked it ignoring that the relationship of banks with the retired is statutory, arising out of the subordinate legislation viz. the Pension Regulations.

15.         When regulation 35 (1) mandated that updating pension is to be done wherever applicable and regulation 56 holds  that pension in banks is on the premise of central civil pension and requires updating in tune with the bi-partite settlements as is done in the case of Central Civil Pension with Pay Commissions, bank unions are mute on the subject and resort to organizational methods for issues like reimbursement of demonitisation expenses  to banks by the government, capital infusion, foreign investment etc. 

16.         Section 10 (7) of the Act permits the Board of Banks to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as reserves in Books only after making due provision for superannuation  benefits and other establishments. Thus superannuation benefits have a prior charge over the profits and even in case banks are operating in red the employee expenses are to be paid.  This is a statutory guarantee given under the Act.  But when banks declared dividends and accumulated the reserves by tweaking the provisions, thus robbing the employees bank unions is mute.  The bank employee who cracks his bones from dawn to dusk is denied due wages and the sweat of his brows go to feed the other sectors.   There is no resentment from the labour organization in the industry on any of the atrocities.

17.         Banks had better pay than government employees in the seventies of last century in view of extended working hours, transfers and financial risks.  Now it is less than two-thirds of central government pay.  The people who implement financial policies of the government gets less and the onlookers get more notwithstanding the fact that banks are “state” and the employees in it are also government servants.  

Achievers or losers  ? you decide

Winners or sinners  ? You decide

Why do bank unions visualize and make a slave dynasty in banking industry when things can be accomplished just by demanding rectification of anomalies and compliance with the statutory requirements alone without demanding any new benefit?