My Dear Friends,
AIBEA TKES "U" TURN ON PENSION UPDATION..WHY SO SUDDEN "SEACHANGE"IN THEIR MIND SET..???
&
TILL YESTER DAY AIBEA HAS BEEN ECHOING PENSION UPDATION IN PHASED MANNER THAT TOO NOT ON RBI PATTERN OWING TO THE COST CONSTRAINTS.... THAT'S HOW THE AIBEA LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN ADVOCATING THE ABOVE EVEN CITING " MANGO CROP THEORY " AS AN EXAMPLE!! POSING LIKE A "SPOKESMAN" OF IBA.
WHAT COULD BE THE REASON FOR A SUDDEN "SEACHANGE" IN THEIR MINDSET??*
( Click the link for details )
In this connection, I annex here the BEFITTING REPLY of our friend Com. CN venugopalan addressed to the AIBEA LEADERSHIP in the wake of their meeting with IBA on 28 02 2023.
I congratulate Com. CN VENUGOPALAN for his initiative.
Contents are SELF-EXPLICIT :
దేవులపల్లి శ్రీనివాస మూర్తి
✴️QUOTE✴️
C N VENUGOPALAN
08 03 2023
General Secretary,
All India Bank Employees Association, Prabhat Nivas, LC Street, Chennai -600 001
Beloved Comrade,
Sub :
Your Circular No.28/518/2013/13 dated 07.03.2003 on
Discussions with IBA on 28.02.2023
====
The above circular shows that the long pending issue relating to updating of pension or retired employees is once again in TRISANKU despite your assurance made earlier to secure it in stages as you now mentioned in it that IBA agreed to provide necessary details at the earliest so that discussions can be taken forward.
Updating of pension on the same lines as in RBI from 01.03.2019 is a must in the wake of the Settlement dated 29.10.1993 entered into under ID Act as clause 12 of it agrees that the amount of pension, updating and general conditions of the Pension Scheme shall be on the basis of what is available in RBI.
The subsequent
Small Committee on pension was also consenting that the terms of the settlement cannot be altered without the consent of AIBEA. It is suicidal that the mighty AIBEA did not demand updating of pension in banks on the same formula
and from the same date as allowed in RBI.
The members of AIBEA also would undoubtedly become the victims of the breach of the Settlement dated 29.10.1993.
Regulation 35 [1] of the Pension Regulations as amended in 2002/2003 mandates that Basic Pension and Additional Pension, wherever applicable shall be updated as per the formulae given in Appendix – I.
It is explicit therefore that pension is to be updated synchronizing with the revised pay scales arising out of each bipartite settlement.
If updating was not meant in the Pension Regulations, there was no
need of mentioning about it in regualtions 35 [1] and also for amending it subsequently.
It is unnecessary for IBA to provide the details for further discussions as the pension in terms of the statutory pension regulations is already a liability undertaken by the banks.
It has to be paid even if banks are running in the red.
Section 10 [7] of the Banking Companies [Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings] Act permits banks to declare a dividend and to retain surplus profits as accumulated reserves only
after making due provisions for payment of pension, among other establishment expenses. But banks had been declaring dividends up to 270 percent and going on accumulating the reserves without updating pension as provided under the
Pension Regulations.
The Pension Funds of banks shows that the annual pay out of pension for past several years is less than one half of the annual growth of the Pension Funds.
Banks like Punjab National Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bank of Baroda etc. have diverted Pension Funds for purposes inconsistent with the provisions of the Pension Fund Trust.
The ingenious touting of UFBU has resulted in the General Manager of a bank retired 25 years ago getting a pension lower than that of his Clerk retiring now.
It has also resulted in the Manager of a bank getting a pension lesser than that of a postman.
All these are feathers to your cap.
Ironically, while the Finance Minister was exhorting OPOP for bank pensioners, Your highness, the leader was propounding the ‘mango’ theory for paying pension.
Settled issues are getting
unsettled through further discussions.
The obligation of banks to pay pension is contractual as it is payable in consideration of CPF or employees / retired employees surrendered/refunded to
the banks.
The relationship of banks with retired employees is statutory and life-long also, arising out of the Pension Regulations approved by the Parliament.
IBA and Unions told that they do not have mandate of the retired employees and both agreed on their behalf at the same time in the Record Note dated 25.05.2015 that banks have no contractual relationship with retired employees.
Going little earlier, the second option was given to employees who could not opt earlier when an option was remaining due to them under the Pension Amendment
Regulations, 1998, which is remaining unimplemented.
What was the objective of
the amendment, if not for granting an option afresh to them.
The sell-out through the Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 resulted in the beneficiaries of the
Pension Scheme losing Rs.1 lakh to Rs. 8 lakhs for getting pension.
Regarding bringing back the employees who joined service of banks after 31.03.2010, their exclusion from the Pension Scheme on the basis of the
Settlement/Joint Note dated 27.04.2010 is void in law and it is inconsistent with the Pension Scheme. It has been clarified in Syndicate Bank Vs Celine Thomas by the High Court of Kerala that Memorandum of Settlements cannot meddle with statutory prescriptions and also in Bank of Baroda & Another Vs. G Palani & Others that the Joint Note has no force of law and the Regulations in force in 2003 are binding.
It is not an onerous task for AIBEA and UFBU to get back the statutorily vested rights of the members and former members especially in the wake of the updating in RBI. If they lack the mettle to do so, they may better abandon their flags and banners into the Arabian sea and shut the shutters forever without conducting a subsidiary loot through subscriptions and levies for ceding the already vested
benefits of members.
Thanking You,
Yours faithfully,
C N VENUGOPALAN
✴️UNQUOTE✴️