IBA'S False Affidavit in SCI (Late MC SIngla & Ors.) will it not come under CONTEMPT OF COURT?
********************************
MY Dear Friends,
Referring to the above I annex hereunder the intersting observations made by one of our Learned friends, Com. Ravi Namboodri to explore the possibilities of initiatng a CONTEMPT ACTION AGAINST THE CUNNING IBA.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H2ijDbtqXhinwy0wMkEm-9RfrDf75cu6/view?usp=drivesdk
IT'S HEARTENING TO NOTE THAT SRI NAMBOODRI GARU HAS TIME & AGAIN STRESSED & HIGHLUGHTED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S LANDMARK JUDGEMENT IN 1616 - 1684 CASE APPEAL FILED BY THE MANAGEMENTS / IBA/GOVT. WHICH HAS GONE IN FAVOUR OF THE RETIREES. FURTHER, HE ALSO CITED THE RELAVENT PORTIONS OF THE KOLKOTTA HIGH CORT JUDGEMENT RELATED TO OUR 100% DA CASE WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL TAKEN INTO COGNISENCE BY THE SAME SCI, IN A GLARING CINTRAST, IN ITS CONTRAVERCIAL JUDGEMENT JUST WITHIN A VERY SHORT SPAN OF JUST THREE MONTHS AS DETAILED OUT IN THE FOLLOWING LINK:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fkHK8zHZE-jCr8N8DJW8OGLkpstTOtg1/view?usp=drivesdk
FURTHER, I HAVE ALSO FORWARDED THESE DETAILS TO ALL THE LEADERS CONCERNED TO EXPLORE THE AVAILABLE AVENUES TO EXPEDITE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS.
LET US EXPLORE ALL THE POSSIBILITIES TO ENSURE JUSTICE & FAIRPLY.
The Contents are SELF-EXPLICIT.
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి
HYDEREBAD 500 079
24 10 2022
✴️QUOTE✴️
IBA Affidavit in Supreme Court connected with M C Singla case on Updation of Pension- whether it will come within the ambit of " Contempt of Court"?
What constitutes Contempt of Court?
It can be civil contempt or criminal contempt. Civil contempt means, wilful disobedience to any judgement, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The Apex Court has enlarged the definition of' Contempt of Court' to also include tendering of false affidavit/ undertaking in court.
The Apex Court, recently, in the case of Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (civil) No. 3 of 2021, in Re:Perry Kansagra, decided on 11 th July 2022, held that a person
who makes a false statement before the court and makes an attempt to deceive the court Or interfere with the administration of justice, is guilty of contempt of court. The Apex Court in a catena of cases has consistently held that tendering of affidavit and undertaking containing false statements would amount to criminal. contempt.
Such cases are,
(1) Pushpadevi. M Jatia vs M. L. Wadhawan(1987) 3 SCC 367
(2) Chandra Shashi vs Anilkumar Verma(1995) 1 SCC 421
(3) Dhananjay Sharma vs State of Haryana (1995) 3 SCC 757
(4) K. D Sharma vs SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481
(5) Kanwar Singh Saini vs High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307
(6) ABCD vs Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52.
In Perry Kansagra case, referred earlier, the Apex Court discussed in length the earlier precedents and summed up thus:
"It is thus well settled that a person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice, and is guilty of Contempt of Court The extracted portion above clearly shows that in such circumstances, the Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged Contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. It is imperative that the litigants should not misstate any fact so as to deceive the Court to obtain favourable order nor should file any false affidavit /undertaking else they are bound to attract the ire of the Court and liable for prosecution for Contempt of Court.
IBA Affidavit in SC vis a vis Contempt of Court.
The two major areas coming under the ambit of Contempt of Court, are: -
(1) wilful disobedience to any judicial direction, order, writ or other process of
the Court,
(2) tendering of false affidavit/undertaking in the Court and make an attempt to deceive the Court to obtain favourable order.
To what extent the IBA Affidavit comes within the coverage of either or both of the above areas?
(1) The Hon Supreme Court of India, in "Bank of Baroda vs G. Palani" judgement,
vide para 9, inter alia, says"........
The provisions contained in Regulations 2(d), 2(s) (c), 35,37, and 38 are extracted hereunder:
*****************************************
35.Amount of Pension: ---(1) Basic Pension and additional pension, wherever applicable, shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix-1. ******************************************
It can be understood from the above statement that the Court clearly uses the
words " The provisions contained in Regulations....... 35.....are extracted hereunder " and then included Regulation 35(1) also among other Regulations.
'extracted' means ‘taken out' which shows there is a provision for Updation of Pension already in the Pension Regulations of 1995, (BEPR amended).
As the Apex Court also has emphatically affirmed the provision for updation of
pension in the Pension Regulations, the IBA Affidavit, vide para 3.7 mentioning,
inter alia, "that there is no provision in Pension Regulations in 1995(BEPR 1995) for any updation in the Pension of Bank Employees and Officers" is not only a wilful disobedience to the judicial direction, but also amounts to tendering of false affidavit/undertaking in the Court and make an attempt to deceive the Court to obtain favourable order.
(2) Again, in the above referred judgement, BOB vs G. Palani. vide para 24, the Court has quoted /extracted relevant portions from the Court's three earlier judgements, namely, (a) Deokinandan Prasad vs State of Bihar &ors, (1971) Supp) SCR 634_Constitution Bench;(b) D S Nakara & ors vs Union of India (1983) 2 SCR 165__Constitution Bench;(c) Chairman, Railway Board &ors vs C R Ranganadhamaiah & ors(1997) 6 SCC 623.The common portion from all these three judgements affirm that".....a pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, is paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living
".By equating pension with wages, saying that payment provided by an employer
in consideration of past service_meaning deferred wages, and mentioning that the
same is meant for the recipient (ie pensioner) to meet the expenses of living , the implication is nothing but pension updation to happen synchronising with every wage revision.
It is worth noting that all the Four SC judgements, the above referred three
judgements plus the present judgement in BOB vs G. .Palani, consistently and
unanimously voice for Updation of Pension during the years, 1971,1983,1997 and 2018.
IBA cannot take a stand as being ignorant of these affirmations since almost majority of the Member Banks were either parties to the appeals in the tagged cases to ' Bank of Baroda vs G. Palani'(Banks have also filed appeals in the case which were dismissed by the Court) or respondents (to appeals filed by different Associations/Individuals). Further, at the time of filing the Contempt Petition in SC(Diary No. 25215/2019) various petitioners to the different tagged appeals, have already sent Contempt of Court notices to all these Banks thereby once again bringing the contents of the judgement in BOB vs G. Palani'to their notice.
Such being the position, how IBA could take a stand against the affirmations of the Court on updation of pension in their affidavit submitted in the Court. No doubt, it is a wilful disobedience to the Court direction and tendering of false affidavit.
(3) In respect of Updation of Pension, the IBA affidavit vide para 3.7 says" That,
therefore, it would neither be appropriate in-principle nor would be financially
viable for the Banks to accept the Representation/claim of the Employees for Updation of Pension at par with Central Employees....... "
(a) the words "it would neither be appropriate in-principle”: ------------.
How could IBA make a statement as above, when they had already signed a
Memorandum of Settlement between them and Workmen Unions on 29/10/1993 wherein vide para 12 it was agreed that" Provision will be made by a scheme to be negotiated and settled between the parties...,..... amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions etc. on the lines that are in force in Reserve Bank of India. ".Further, in
the same Memorandum of Settlement vide para 16 it was also accepted that"
Copies of the Memorandum of Settlement will be jointly forwarded by the parties to the authorities listed in Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules 1957, so that terms and conditions thereof are binding on the parties as provided in law
".When IBA one of the parties to the Memorandum themselves agrees therein to consider Updation of Pension also, inter alia, and accepted the legally binding position, now venturing to give a contradictory statement by, suppressing,
twisting and false statement in the Court
(b) the words "nor would be financially viable for the Banks to accept the
Representation/claim of the Employees for updation of pension":---
It is very much against the judicial pronouncements in various Supreme Court judgements that Financial Constraints cannot be a reason for denying the legitimate rights of the Pensioners; references (1) D S Nakara&ors vs Union of India(1983) 2 SCR 165(Constitution Bench), (2) Shivakumar Bahadur Singh vs
State of UP writ A No 1063/2022 dt of judgement 20/3/2022, (3) Kapila Hingorani vs State of Bihar(2003) 6 SCC 1,(4) B L Wadera vs Union of India (All 1996 SC 2969,and (5) Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd The Registrar Co-operative Societies CA 297_298/2022 dt of judgement 11/2/2022
(c) the words".... updation of pension at par with Central Employees "--------
In this context it is worth to quote the relevant portion from the Supreme Court
judgement in CA 5252_5255/2018, United Bank of India vs United Bank of India Retirees Welfare Assn, dt of judgement 16/5/2018 para No 3"A Memorandum of Settlement dt 29_10_1993 was entered into between the management of 58 Banks
represented by the Indian Banks Association on one hand and their workers as represented by the All India Bank Employees Association on the other. Said memorandum recited that the parties had agreed to introduce pension scheme in Banks for the workmen /employees in lieu of employers' contribution to the provident fund and that the pension scheme so agreed was to be broadly on Central Government/ Reserve Bank of India pattern. Paragraph 6 of the memorandum dealt with Dearness Allowance relief to pensioners and it stipulated
' Dearness relief to pensioners will be granted at such rates as may be determined from time to time with the Dearness Allowance formula in operation in Reserve Bank of India "
The Supreme Court had only referred to what was there in the Memorandum of
Settlement signed between the IBA and workmen on 29_10_1993 which, inter alia also refer to the parity of Bank pension broadly on Central Government/ Reserve Bank of India pattern. Then how could IBA give a totally distorted, contradictory statement in the Court deviating from its committed position in the Memorandum.
From the above paragraphs it is abundantly clear that IBA by
suppressing /distorting agreed and committed position in the Affidavit, has shown disregard to judicial pronouncements besides tendering false affidavit as such.
(4) IBA vide para 3.1 of the Affidavit submitted in the Court, inter alia, states that IBA negotiate with the Workmen Unions /Officers Associations of the Member Banks on the basis of specific mandate to negotiate in this regard from Member Banks, and again vide para 3.4 refers to the Bipartite Settlement signed with the Workmen Union on29_10_1993 and Joint Note signed with the Officers
Association on 29_10_1993.
But IBA cleverly suppress the related Memorandum of Settlement signed on the same date between IBA and Workmen Union where both parties had mutually agreed to introduce DA and Updation of Pension on the pattern obtaining in Reserve Bank of India (paras 6 and 12 of the Memorandum) and the agreed legally binding position of
the same on the parties to the Settlement as provided in law (para 16).
The point is whether the signing of this Memorandum of Settlement on
29_10_1993 agreeing, inter alia, to introduce DA and Updation of Pension was on the Specific Mandate from the Member Banks or not?. This question to be read with the beginning words of the Memorandum itself where it was emphatically declared that" Memorandum of Settlement dated 29th October 1993 between the
Management of 58 Banks as represented by Indian Banks Association. ...."This was taken on record by the Supreme Court in CA 5252_5255/2018 as referred earlier in this Note.
CONCLUSION
The Hon Supreme Court of India extracting the existing provision for Updation of Pension, Regulation 35(1), inter alia, from the Pension Regulations and still IBA stating that there is no provision for the Updation of Pension in the Pension Regulations; the Apex Court, further equating Pension with Wages indicating the need for Updation of pension with every wage revision consistently through Four of its judgements but IBA giving a deaf year to it; the Court repeatedly affirming in
different judgements that Precarious financial conditions cannot deny the
legitimate rights of pensioners and IBA still mentioning the same reason for
denying the legitimate rights of pensioners; the Court quoting the words from the Memorandum of Settlement signed between IBA and Workmen on 29_10_1993 referring to the pension be broadly on lines of Central Government/ RBI and IBA blatantly distorting the position in the Affidavit;IBA despite signing the above referred Memorandum wherein agreed to introduce DA and pension on RBI pattern basing on the specific mandates from 58 Member Banks and still states that they need specific mandates from Member Banks for agreeing to Updation of Pension.
The above narratives clearly bring the IBA Affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court within the ambit of Contempt of Court.
No doubt on that.
By,
S.Ravi Namboodiri
✴️UNQUOTE✴️