Saturday, June 26, 2010

Madras High Court stays contribution of 2.8 time of the Nov 2007 pay by the present CPF optees to join the pension fund




The Madras High Court has granted interim stay of a clause in the ninth bipartite settlement for bank employees of April this year requiring contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund.
Justice K. Venkataraman passed the interim order on a petition by the Canara Bank Workers Union, Nungambakkam and R. Radhakrishnan of Nungambakkam, a member of the managing committee of the union.
The petitioners submitted that in the previous pension settlement dated October 29, 1993, and Pension Regulations 1995, there was a provision only for transfer of banks' contribution to the PF account along with accrued interest. There was no provision for payment or transfer of any other additional amount.
While in the seventh and eighth bipartite settlements all employees (both pension and PF optees) had contributed to fund the gap in the Pension Fund, in the present settlement dated April 27, the entire load had been placed only on those employees who wanted to opt for pension now, while the existing pension optees were left free. The contemplated recovery exclusively from the PF optees who wished to join the Pension Fund now amounted to discrimination and was violative of the Constitution.
Mr. Justice Venkataraman ordered notice regarding admission returnable in three weeks.




"CANARA BANK WORKERS’ UNION(Regd.)
Anand Plaza, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore-560 009
Phone : 22260185/22266469 email: 
workersunion@gmail.com

Circular No. 3/2010 Dated: 26 Jun 2010

Interim Stay Granted

Friends,

As informed to you in our previous circular, a legal-cell was constituted under the guidance of our President at Chennai and Dr.R. Radhakrishnan, our Managing Committee member was entrusted with the task of coordinating its activities. Our legal cell went into the issue of Pension since the days of Sastry Award and came out with a lot of startling facts and revelations. For the benefit of our members we furnish hereunder a few of the important points noticed by our team.

1. Neither in the previous Pension Settlement of 1993 nor in the subsequent Pension Regulations of 1995, there is any provision for contribution from the employees to fill up any shortfall or gap in the Pension Fund.

2. In terms of the Pension Regulations of 1995, it is the duty of the management to ascertain the financial requirements of the Pension Fund and make additional contributions to the Fund as may be required.

3. The technique adopted for filling up of the gap in the Pension Fund by contributing a share of the revised wages during the 7th & 8th Bipartite Settlements is not envisaged under the Pension Regulations.

4. The PF optees have been forced to forego a portion of their duly earned wages to build up the pension fund, even though they are not beneficiaries of the fund.

5. The deletion of the penal clause on strike in the Pension Regulations was effected during 1999, surreptitiously, without any publicity and without giving another option to the PF optees to join the Pension Fund as was done in the case of RBI.

6. The Pension Settlement of 1993 and the minutes of the small committee of IBA & the unions clearly provide that the pension scheme in Banks is on the lines of the pension scheme in RBI and that of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules 1972, both of which are non-contributory(by the employees) in nature. Therefore the question of “sharing the incremental cost of pension in every wage revision” should not have been accepted by the signatories of the settlements, since neither the govt employees nor the RBI employees contribute anything to share the incremental cost of servicing pension.

Shri C N Venugopalan, a SVRS optee from Union Bank and a pioneering crusader in this pension issue for nearly a decade, was kind enough to send us additional documents and inputs. Shri N Pradeep Kumar (formerly of Bank of India) and a practising Supreme Court advocate was delighted to send us detailed arguments and citations from land mark cases on pension. We are indeed grateful to both these gentlemen for their guidance, material and the very best of their wishes conveyed through their emails to our President. Besides, our group was also regularly exchanging and comparing notes with Shri Kamlesh Chaturvedi, General Secretary of PNB Workers Union U.P., who fired the first salvo on this pension settlement through his writ petition in the Allahabad High Court.

Accordingly, our team filed a Writ Petition in the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras, praying for grant of an interim stay only in so far as it concerns the contribution of 2.8 time of the Nov 2007 pay by the present CPF optees to join the pension fund. The Hon’ble High Court has granted an interim stay with notice to the parties returnable in three weeks. Additional details on this will be communicated in due course.

We now expect the IBA to rush to Delhi to transfer our WP (along with that of the Punjab National Bank Workers Union(U.P.) and All India Punjab National Bank Workers Federation , Delhi) to the Supreme Court. The other possibility is for them to approach the Madras High Court to get this stay vacated. We also reliably understand that a few of the signatory unions are very keen on getting the stay vacated.

Despite opposition pouring in from every nook and corner of the country over the last two months, the UFBU is yet to come out with any circular stating the logic in signing the settlement or the truth behind their sudden last minute change of stand from 1.6 to 2.8. We expect them to reveal their contentions at least in the course legal cases now raised in various parts of the country

Friends, it should be remembered that we cannot afford to remain idle or complacent after obtaining a stay. The need of the hour is to remain vigilant and focus our efforts till we achieve complete success in our endeavor. The betrayers of bank employees have to be exposed organizationally as well as legally and shown the door. The status of bank employees, which presently happens to be that of a docile flock of hapless followers controlled by cut-throats, needs to be lifted to that of an elite, empowered, vigilant and fearless group of warriors, who cannot be taken for a ride by any set of self-seeking leaders. Let us all put in our efforts to achieve that glorious state.

Fraternally yours,

(Balasubramanya Pai)
GENERAL SECRETARY"





AIBEA Response :


 "It is reported that an individual has obtained Interim Injunction from the High Court of Chennai.

Steps will be taken to get it vacated."

69 comments :

vatsan said...

Our foolish great union leaders especially aibea, never allow anybody live peacefully.

sudhakar said...

Even now also the UFBU is trying to hoodwink the members with cock and bull stories and not coming forward to revel the story behind the changes in the calculation. Hope they have to revel to the court at least now.

Runtrailblog said...

Contrary to our expectations, it is not the IBA which is now rushing to get the stay vacated, but the guardian angels of the working class movement are working overtime to get it done for them.

The money collected through the levy from us would be spent by them to fight the cases filed by the employees against the Pension Settlement. They have already proved their love and affection for the bank employees by not only deciding to sign anti-constitutional pension settlement but also forcing other unions to sign it. Their attitude towards bank employees is evident from the scrolling message on their site

ashok said...

Shrimati Sonia Gandhi,
Hon’ble Chairperson UPA and Chairman,
All India Congress Committee,
New Delhi.

Respected Madam,

Extension of pension option to bank employees – pension joint note dated 27.04.10. Government may please be advised to follow the Rules Regulations/Constitution and substantive law.

1. I take the privilege of presenting a case, before the Chairperson of the ruling alliance of the Great Country, in the matter of implementation of pension settlement in banks. IBA/Govt. should be asked to follow the Constitution and prevailing rules and regulations of Bank Employees Pension Regulations while implementing the pension pact dated 27.04.2010.

2. Recently Indian Banks Association and bank employees unions have signed an agreement to extend a fresh option for pension to those who could not opt when offered in 1995 because the presence of an adverse clause “That entire past service of an employee may be forfeited in case one participated in strike at any time”. Why this clause was incorporated in pension rules when participation in strike was never illegal neither in 1993 nor in 2010. Judiciary enthroned on its Seat and declared the above clause as “unconstitutional and void” therefore scrapped it from Bank Employees Pension Regulations. A bad name was earned by the architects of the said illegal clause in the regulations. It was the duty of IBA to invite fresh options from those who could not exercise it in 1993 due to existence of that illegal clause. Banks fraudulently kept the amendment in CAMERA and failed to honor the constitutional duty to comply the legal requirements, IBA knowingly deprived the majority of the bank employees from enjoying their legal rights ignoring basic ethics of a public sector employer. It is now the duty of IBA to set right the mistake generously. There was a provision in the draft regulations of 1993 and also in the final regulations of 1995 “that option once exercised shall be final and irrevocable.” Bank managements revoked the pension options violating pension regulations.

3. Now the authority of the law is on stake again. Implementation of the fresh options to pension will again witness a bad show and further violations of the regulations. The judiciary may again grace its Seat and establish the Rule of Justice by penetrating the legal interpretations of the proposed clauses of pension settlement dated 27.04.10. Illegalities cannot be excused by the veil of settlement. There cannot be any agreement particularly between the Employer and the Employee basing on the Law of Equality.

4. In absence, constitution takes birth and thumps that “state” should act judiciously and prudently while implementing settlement over “Service Matters”. Government should not wait for judicial involvements rather extend all out support to “Employees”. There exists some points of dispute in the recent pension option pact dated 27.04.10, these points of disagreement may give rise to fresh anomalies/breaches and illegal interpretations at the time of its implementation. Some of them can be summarized as follows.

5. Clause (3) (c) of Pension settlement dated 27.04.10: “Refund within 30 days after expiry of the said period of 60 days, the entire amount of “the bank’s contribution to the provident fund and interest accrued thereon received by the officer on retirement ……”. On an individual basis, the payment over and above the bank’s contribution to provident fund and interest thereon has been worked out at 56% of the above said amount.

6. “The recovery of 56% over and above the recovery of bank’s contribution to provident fund and interest thereon is challenged on the following grounds being unconstitutional and in total violation of the “Pension Regulations”.

continude

ashok said...

contd.
7. IBA cannot insist for funding a gap of 30% from the retirees now. “Para (a) of the short recital of the Settlement Dated 29.10.93” debars IBA from any such recovery of 56% over and above the bank’s share to provident fund. Para (a) speaks :


8. “During the course of negotiations on service conditions of the workmen employees in February, 1990 the IBA agreed to introduce pension scheme in Banks for the workmen employees in lieu of “Employer’s contribution to the Provident Fund”. Clause 2 of the settlement of 29.10.93 clearly states: “Pension as a second retrial scheme is in lieu of contributory provident fund …” The provision debars IBA from recovery of @56% over and above the bank’s contribution to provident fund. It further offends clause 11 of the Pension Regulations, 1995. Clause 11 of regulations of 1995 reads:

9. “The bank shall cause an investigation to be made by actuaries into the financial condition of the fund every year .., and make such additional annual contributions to the Fund as may be required to secure payment of the benefits under these regulations.” So IBA should not ask for any such illegal recovery of 56 per cent over and above of the bank’s contribution to provident fund and accrued interest.

10. The provision to recover @2.8 times of revised nov.07 Pay is without any basis, irrational and unconstitutional because there is no such provision exists in the pension regulations. Regulations only allow/permit the managements of the banks/IBA to ask refund of bank’s contributions to provident fund from the existing employees. The directives of pension agreement dated 27.04.10 are again offending clause (2) of pension settlement dated 29.10.93 and also clause 11 of Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations-1995. It narrows the law of Equality.

11. There are some existing employees who opted for pension when offered in 1993 and some who did not opt due to existence of the prohibitory clause “that whole service may be forfeited if one participates in a strike at any time”. Who opted pension when offered, their bank’s contributions to provident fund was credited to Pension Fund by debiting to Trustees Provident Fund. Employees who will exercise now option to pension, shall also have to authorize the banks to debit their provident fund account and credit to Pension Fund account, both the Trustees are sitting near by near at the Towers of the banks.

12. There is no other slightest difference between these two. Why, who will opt now to pension and refund what was refunded by their office-mates earlier, shall in addition make @2.8 times of the revised Pay for the month of nov.2007. If there is any deficit in funding the pension/family pension, it should be borne by the banks. Existing Employees are under no obligation to make good of the so-called gap.

13. The next point of dispute is over the clause 8 of the pension settlement dated 27.04.10. It runs “Pension/Family pension to those who opt to join the pension scheme complying with the terms of this joint note dated 27.04.10 shall be payable with effect from 27th November 2009, provided that officers who retired after that date shall get pension from the respective dates of their retirement”. The direction violates all the Laws of justice.

ashok said...

CONTD.
14. IBA armed its member banks to forcibly derive the amount @2.8 times of the revised Pay for November 07 from the employees who are in employment on 27.04.10 and @ 56% over and above of the bank’s contributions to provident fund and interest thereon who were on rolls up to 26.4.10. There is no justification to suggest that pension/family pension shall be paid from 27.11.09.

15. How the date 27.11.09 was selected for payment of pension/family pension. On this day nothing special was occurred, only one MOU was created, but in early 2008 one such MOU was also created by the parties. So 27.11.09 has no significance in the eyes of Law. The Lawful date can only be, the respective retirement dates/dates of death. Any other date if selected is irrelevant and arbitrary.

16. You are aware, that thousands crore are rolling as bad debts, thousands crore are converting as the Non Performing Assets, and thousands crore of the advances, are being condoned. Payment of pension/family pension from the retirement date/death date of the employees cannot affect the financial muscles of the Indian banking.

Kindly suggest IBA to withdraw offendable provisions from the settlement dated 27.04.10. All should avoid unnecessary litigation. In this way The Courts can use their best of time in deciding more urgent disputes. Kindly acknowledge.
Thanking you,


(Ashok Goel)

Shridhar said...

Ashok Goel you have correctly given the picture of pension regulations of 1993-2010.But who will listen when the great leaders were negotiating the issue have they never thought it.They only think that when Govt/IBA has agreed to extend one more option that is enough and they became ready what iba has proposed for recovery of gap ect.No where in pension regulation in central/state govt that employees has to contribute to pension fund a d get the pension.It is a shameful on the part of the leaders.Our unity is so strong and moreover banking is a key bone of the indian economy and banks are giving very huge profits to govt even then we are paid less than central govt emp.We should have gone for indefinite strike in past only for pension issue and got it without any refund of extra over and above banks contribution.Now of no use our leaders have already signed the agreement.Now if we go to court it will take 10 years as in the case of 5 years additional for who took vrs the case settled in 2009 after 9 years by that time how many retirees are alive.

raju said...

AIBEA is bunch of Idiots


raju

ramanujamgovind said...

Approaching Hon’ble Courts at this point of time doesn’t seem to be good moves to me. When interim stay, may be made absolute subsequently, for collection towards the gap of pension fund, is there, IBA may take a stand not to give one more option, due shortage of funds, which is also not in tune with the terms of MOU agreed upon between them and the Unions. The MOU is, only when the gap is collected from the aspirants to pension scheme, they will give one more option and when it is not forthcoming, due to Court order/s , IBA will simply abstain from enforcing the MOU. Hence better option would be to soft play things till such time pension options are given and accepted.

Shridhar said...

Now of no use once the settlement is signed means it is final.As AIBEA/AIBOC have clearly stated that on 26th and 27th if the proposal of iba is not accepted then NO PENSION so in such condition our leaders have accepted the pension option for the betterment of our members only.Last 15 years Govt/IBA were very much adamant to give 2nd option pension due to no funds to give it.Now any way they have agreed to give pension by paying 30%gap let it be.At least we will get monthly pension of Rs.15000 to 25000 as the case may be to evry body that too on every 1st of the month without any tension of rate of int on deposit ect.So my request not to knock the door of court at this juncture and the settlement implement smoothly without any hurdle.Going to court let us see afterwords.As far as additional 5 years for vrs 2000 the case was won after 9 years now if we go to court for this it will take 10 years to settle and no pension to retirees and those who will be retiring in near future.I request our union leaders to press IBA to issue instructions to bankers at the earliest.Thanks to the leaders for achieving 2nd pension option.

SHANKAR said...

Several banks have already paid arrears as per 9 th BPS and have collected 2.8 times of November 2007 basic pay and PF optees are also happily submitted consent letters and paid levy to the unions.In few banks not even one employee has objected this collection.However, if somebody is fighting and getting this 2.8 times of BP of November 2007 to all employees back everybody will enjoy the same.

Skumar said...

If unions particularly AIBEA not trying to vacate Honb'le Madras high Court Interim Stay for recovery of 2.8 salary for 2nd pension option from PF optees then it should be favorable for their members and them(AIBEA) also.If AIBEA openly told and flash on website for it then AIBEA don't want to save money of PF optee members and its prove itself that AIBEA is supporting IBA and against their own members.

AIBEA has already committed one mistake with signing of 2nd pension option and poor 9th wage settlement and now going to do another mistake with openly going to vacate the interim stay issued by madras High Court.

Our request to them to leave the superiority complex and don't make it EGO matter.

One may be wrong but lacs can't wrong.

vatsan said...

dear Sriramanujamgovind,
Your views are absloutely wrong.
Think twice before you post a comment.The day will come soon you have take back your comment.There are so many air packets in the so called 9 BPS., cheating the entire working class by the same working class senior com.(Pretending to be Guardian of working class) We shd not deprive of our rights .Law will give the real judgement .We will wait and see.

vatsan said...

It seems Madars High court overruled the objections raised by aibea and others and rejected to vaccate the stay order.

Skumar said...

And Mr.Shankar Who told you All employee have gave LEVY ? And for your kind knowledge deduction of 2.8 salary of No'2007 is condition for 2nd pension option Whether PF optee want to opt or not but till the time up to bank will offer pension option to pf optee.And consent letter should be needed after offer from bank.Not a single bank has offered pension option to their employees till the date.

Please don't spread rumors like all employees has paid Levy.

From my region not a single banker has paid levy and for kind information my leaders not dare to ask me for levy.

Single employee can't fight.Pf optees forum is working for them.

NOBODY WANT TO PAY LEVY FOR USE TO VACATE HONB'LE MADRAS HIGH COURT INTERIM STAY. OK.

Now stop your leaders prayer.Now enough. Where gone your knowledge?

Shridhar said...

Read the news that Madrs high court has overruled the objection of and rejected to vacate the stay order then what will be the fate of 2nd option pension.No union/asso are coming forward to give correct picture for implementation of pension option.Only news that Govt cleared the 2nd option pension and detailed circular follows from AIBOC that is since friday till to-day they have come out with circular will it take to issue 5 days to issue circular.We as retirees are waiting for getting the pension earliest possible.So I request to our great leaders to give us correct picture about the case and further progress in the matter.Banks have started paying arrears then what about pension offer letters ect.Pl clarify

Vasu said...

The case at Honourable Madras High Court came up for hearing on 29.6.2010 and the order was amended on facts. Interim order is being issued. The next hearing is on 6.7.2010 to consider admissibility.
( Source: AIBEA site )

Not with standing all these legal hurdles, would the leaders please clarify when the instructions would reach the Banks to initiate the process of Second pension option. Whether the ongoing court cases would delay the implementation? Leaders should understand that retired persons are extremely anxious to draw pension and the delay is causing stress.
Vasudevan

Runtrailblog said...

Mr Vasu & Mr Sridhar,

The writ petition was filed only to quash the Clause 32 of the 9th bipartite settlement and that of Clause 1 of the pension settlement, in so far as the said clauses require the PF optees to contribute 2.8 times the Nov 2007 revised pay if they want to opt for the pension scheme.

The interim stay is only on the operation of Clause 32 of the 9th bipartite Settlement & Clause 1 of the pension settlement, only in so far as the said clause require the PF optees to contribute 2.8 times of Nov 2007 pay to become members of the Pension Fund.
So there is no need for a stress. Full details available here:-
http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Updates%20on%20interim%20stay-30062010.htm

http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Writ%20Petition%20at%20Madras%20High%20Court%20-%20Full%20Text.htm

Ramachandran said...

I feel that there is no reason why IBA should not give option through respective banks for retired employees as the case at Chennai High court is not at all affecting the retirees.

I also do not understand why AIBOC has written that IBA has to wait for the Chennai High Court decision on 6th of July for giving 2nd option for all.

As runtrailblog has stated the case is mainly only to delete the clause 32 of 9th BPS where it is talking about recovery of 2.8 times from the existing working PF optees for getting 2nd option.

Therefore I feel that AIBOC should persuade IBA to issue option for retired employees as any further delay will affect retirees very much such as commutation factor/tension and anxiety in their old age which will definitely affect their health.

Shridhar said...

Madras High court has given stay order only for recovery of 2.8% of pay as on Nov 07 to opt 2nd option pension.One comment says that as retirees are no way concern and iba should give option letters to them.When recovery matter comes then what about 156% pf recovery that matter is also combined both 2.8% and 156%.So iba will issue option letters to retirees only.If 2.8%matter settles then retirees also need not pay 156%.They will pay only banks pf along with int at the time of retirement whatever they have received because they are also not getting pension from their retirement date.So i think now how days,months,years to wait for retirees to get their pension for which they are waiting for last 15 years because of the mistake of great leaders only who told us NO PENSION if service is more that 10 years or so in the year 1995.Let us see what will happen on 6th July.wait and watch.

SHANKAR said...

Referring to Skumar-June 29, 2010 9:27 PM
Without verifying facts abusing others is of no use.I have seen with my own eyes the cheques habded over by employees in our bank to union leaders in respect of levy amount which can be verified with union accounts. If you do not know facts it is different. Majority of CPF optees prefer to get pension option first and then move to court instead of moving to court first and lose pension.

Dharmaraj said...

Union leaders are supposed to protect the rights of the Bank Employees. But in this case they are hell bent on penalizing a section of their own members. Their sadism had grown up to such heights that they are delighted by the fact that a number of their colleagues are forced to remit money from their hard earned arrears.If the leaders, instead of supporting the cause of their membership continues to act against them, they will have to soon feel sorry to find their members deserting them. Be it IBA or the government- pension should be paid without any contribution what so ever from any employee.
No Bank management will become poorer if they have to shell their share of the 1800 crore deficit to maintain equality to all employees and pave way for a congenial atmosphere in the industry.

chandan said...

Referring SHANKAR July 1, 2010 9:06 PM:

Sir,

In our bank 100% PF Optee opt for pension. All PF Optees deposited 2.8 times from arrears. No one is much dissatisfied of this subject of opting by paying 2.8 times.

Except two or three most paid levy. Those two-three are not for BPS or Pension, but for some internal problem like transfer etc.


@Skumar:

It is quite dangerous to invite legal recourse for this 2.8 times. If matter refers to Apex court, it may take 10 years to get a decision. Who will be losers? PF Optees.Cunning IBA may play any other trick at that time not to extend this 2nd pension option so easily.Think of the PF retires. What will be their condition withour pension for such a long period?Think wisely, Act wisely.

However as on date OSR PF Retires are not eligible to join in pension as per the 2nd pension agreement signed. Only superannuation and SVRS-2000(an industry level subject) PF retires are eligible to join by paying 156%.

Thanks.

Shrinivas said...

s.s.j. Madhya Pradesh : It is all beating the drums when the settlements are signed. Canara Bank Leadership were sleeping for two years during which the various meetings to settle various issues were taken place. Now when implementation time has come, this leadership came up to show their concerns about the employees. I am of the opinion if the 2nd option is given, p.f. optee bank employees will accept it on any cost. Offer of this option is not stayed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras. IBA should take initiative and prove it in numbers of acceptance which will be not less than 1.5 lacs within a week's time. Thanks UFBU

Runtrailblog said...

Refering Chandan @ Shrinivas,
Those who already opted for pension early not at all bothered about the plight of present PF Optees.We very well know this fact.
That is why Shrinivasan said: I am of the opinion if the 2nd option is given, p.f. optee bank employees will accept it on any cost."
At any cost?

In my branch our union leader has also same attitude:"We had told you to opt for pension in 1993.but you didnt.So you have to be penalised.That is what happening now.So you have no voice to complaint".
One simple question :whether anything lost additionally to those persons already opted only beacuse of that earlier option?And whether anything getting additionally to those PF Optees only because of new option?
If not why the unions and those persons who already opted are adamant in this case?Here only union 'ego' matters.

Dont forgot almost 3 lac employees are there as PF Optees. I dont think all are happy to accept this option as Mr Chandan said. There are many in our bank also not paid any levy.In our bank also union hurried to disburse arrears and put 2.8 times of Nov salary in suspense a/c .Every one knows why they are hurry.
Anyway old british manthra divide and rule is going to succeed , not only by IBA but our unions are also fully supporting.

Skumar said...

In some branches employees has paid levy to union is not AN UNIVERSAL TRUTH.
Here is reverse picture.

And particularly for my branch leaders have no daring to ask me for levy.

Shankar,Chandan and Shrinivas.

- Not a single PF optee told that he is not want pension option.

- 2.8 pay of Nov'2007 for 2nd pension option is pre condition for it.

- When 1.6 pay for all matter came then old pension optee has rush to court.

- Now turn of PF optee We want pension but with justifiable way.
And Some people gone to courts.

- When pension optees feel injustice and through court they have get justice When PF optees not claimed any objection,We thought that at least half of fraternity have got justice,So Why now pension optees criticize our actions?

- I agreed due to court cases 2nd pension option procedure is delaying but for that We can't sacrifice wrongly way recovery of Rs.1800 Crs.

- IF PF OPTEES WILL WIN IN THE COURT THEN IT WILL ALSO BENEFICIAL TO PENSION OPTEES, BECAUSE OF IBA WILL CAN NOT DEDUCT PENSION COST GAP AMOUNT FROM OUR WAGE SETTLEMENT,NO PROVISION IN PENSION REGULATIONS.

- And up to time Canara Bank Worker Union and others are not taking and presenting strongly 7th and 8th BPS pension gap deduction from pf opttes also.
And You all WISE Persons knows very well that if it will taken seriously by Hon'le High Court then situation will may be changed,
Court may be ask for cost calculation,pension fund accounts of banks,auditor reports,Accuracies reports and implementation for provision of pension fund gap etc.

You all are Pension optees then What problem you have?

Your 2.8 salary is not Earmarked by banks.

If due to court cases 2nd pension option will not came or finished then you have no tension You are already pension optees.We will suffer.

THEN WHY YOU ARE CRITICIZING PF OPTEES?

If you are not giving any moral or other supports to us then you should not be criticize us.

It may be possible you all are leaders or men of them to demoralized pf optees from this platform.

Take care of you.

Shrinivas said...

Shrinivas from Madhya pradesh : I can understand the position and feelings of our Union leaders while signing this Pension Settlement. Instead of approaching the High Courts, the first priority is the implementation of both the settlements. Once the offer is given (for pension) thereafter the entire process will start. Those who are not agreeable to accept the conditions mentioned in the offer, are at liberty to accept it or raise any objection on those conditions. The santity of the settlement can not be chalanged. In our Country more leaders and less followers - is the situation. I earnestly appeal to those who are really interested for the welfare of bank employees, do not increase the burden on our various Hon'ble Courts. These issues can be resolved later on also. I appeal all leaders to kindly contribute towards the strengthening the Indian Economy by way of undertaking the recovery of NPA. Timely assistance for production activity unit, improvement of services and thereafter service conditions also. Yes, I believe, if we do all these things, burden of Pension Fund will not be burden or issue for anybody. I do not know whether this appeal will go to leaders or not but do not spoil your energy in Court cases, please start drafting memorandum for 10th Bipartite immediately. I hope good for everybody. Let the Bank management give the proposal of 2nd option of Pension to all concerned and decide the matter.

chandan said...

@Skumar July 2, 2010 11:41 AM:

Be cool and don't take this mere 2.8 factors as a prestige issue. First opt and catch hold of pension.After that you all have liberty to move to the court of law, if you feel any injustice.Please note court case may not be end at Madras High Court.It will move to Supreme Court.See how many years the case of Income Tax on our PERQUISITES are continuing. I may be a pension optees, but I have so many friends and relatives, who are PF optees. I must have a duty to them to get the subject settle harsh free and quickly.So you can't branded yourself a messiah of PF optee alone in the country. I think you are not on verge of retirement right now. That's why you have enough energy to get the matter settled through court of law.But note there are persons, who want to leave this industry after opting pension as early as possible. There are also PF retires. So sometime also think of them. Don't move like a rhino.


Thanks.

chandan said...

@Runtrailblog July 2, 2010 6:22 AM:

I have already treated you a future employee of SBI. Then what's your problem? You will get refund 2.8 factor from your future employer.So no need to worry for others in nationalised banks on pension option.Leave AIBEA and join NCBE after merger.

Thanks.

chandan said...

NPS is to be implemented in SBI for new recruitees soon. Agreement likely to be signed along with SBI Package i.e 3rd SCA on distribution of 297 crores, earmarked for SBI employees/ officers from 2nd pension option of industry. News are coming 11000 Clerical final result is not out keeping an eye on implementation of NPS,

Thanks.

Shrinivas said...

Shrinivs from M.P. : Each and every employee must understand that the present time is tough. Every settlement and MOU is very difficult assignment. UFBU representing maximum as far as upto 90 to 95 percent of the working strength has not signed any illegal settlement. The settlement is not to commit any crime. Hence projection given by Canara Bank union is foolish and incorrect. If the Canara Bank Union is really interested in welfare of the employees, come on on the road and give a strike call to their membership and see the result. They will find themselves all alone, nobody even from Canara Bank will give active support by way of continious strike and wage cut for two days. Merely filing a writ in the Court is not proving ourselves as a REAL ONLY WELL WISHERS OF BANK EMPLOYEES. This Canara Bank Union should withdraw their writ application from Madras High Court and come on the Road and compel the government to listen their logic. I do not know how many bank employees serving or retired during the period between 7th to 9th settlement. Consider their family condition and then go the court and decide the option issue.

Runtrailblog said...

Mr.Srinivas,Yes it is illegal settlement.You are beating around the bush.And some lame excuses.Dont think others are fools.Everyone knows the real facts and who is the real culprit

Clause 11 of Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 reads;

“The bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the fund every financial year; AND MAKE SUCH ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO SECURE PAYMENTS OF THE BENEFITS UNDER THESE REGULATIONS.”

So the regulations debar the banks from asking any such amount in the name of funding the gap in pension administration. Further clause 7 of the regulations specifies that how the composition of such Fund will take shape? It is worded like this;

COMPOSITION OF THE FUND

“The Fund SHALL consists of the following, namely;-

a) The contribution by the bank at the rate 10 percent per month of the pay of the employee;

b) The accumulated contributions of the bank to the provident fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of the employees;

c) The amount consisting of contributions of the bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations;

d) The investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the fund and interest thereon.

e) Amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the fund;

f) The additional annual contribution made by the bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these regulations;

g) Any income from investments of the amounts credited to the fund;

h) The amount consisting of contributions of the bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.”

There is no implied suggestion even in the above regulations that banks can forcibly collect some money from the beneficiaries in the name of gap in funding the Fund. Banks are not allowed to raise funds from the sources other than specified under sub clause (a) to (h) of clause 7 of the regulations.

Bank cannot excavate a handsome corpus of money from the pensioners by demanding 56% over and above of the CPF and interest accrued thereon on the pretext of “Funding a gap”. Banks cannot make unauthorized demand from the existing employees to donate @2.8 times of revised Pay for the month of November, 2007.

During the 7th bipartite settlement the managements came with the plea that they are not in a position to meet the increasing cost of the Pension Scheme and insisted that the employees share a part of the incremental cost which was advised as 26.50%.. Accordingly the employees were made to share 8.25% out of this 26.50% which was deducted from the agreed 12.25% wage rise. In the 8th Bipartite Settlement employees’ share of incremental cost which was advised at 30%, was increased to 9.25% .During the 9th Bipartite Settlement this cost was advised at 36% and employees are now made to share 13% of this incremental cost.


Then one doubt prevails in all the bank employee’s mind:
How the unions and IBA divert fund from employees in the present and previous settlements?. All the bank employees has the right to know how this violation happened? All Unions have to answer this

Runtrailblog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Runtrailblog said...

@chandan July 2, 2010 11:44 PM
What an Idea Sirji! Everything so simple!My problem is over,Thank you!

Dharmaraj said...

My dear friends,

Try to relax - every one. When the first chance for pension came, many didnt opt because there was a semblance of doubt abt it. So, many rightly didnt opt for it. Its only the most natural thing. But now all are aware that pension is a safe option for all bankmen. We didnt take risk then and we are entering when the picture is clear and it is a safe bet. Its just like buying a share after judging the performance of the company and we have to pay a little higher rate when purchasing it at a later date. So let us relax and get the pension option first.

Its true that even PF optees had been penalised for funding the differential pension funding during the 7th., 8th. and 9th. settlement. This anomaly has to be rectified only at a later date when a writ can be filed for refund of what ever money is spent now towards pension costing. Till then let us remit the 2.8 or 56% and clinch the issue once and for all.

Dont fall a prey to un necessary propganda, but act wisely. Let us not be too calculative. Life is too short and let us not spoil it by calculating the ifs and buts.

thank u all!!!!

vatsan said...

Dear Mr. Dharmaraj,

RULE OF LAW IS SAME FOR EVERY ONE.
DONT NEGOTIATE ON THAT. IF ONE BENEFIT WAS EXTENDED EARLIER THE SAME BENEFIT SHOULD BE EXTEND TO ALL WHEN THEY CALLED FOR.
BE CALM DONT PROVOKE ANYBODYS' ILLFEELING.

chandan said...

@Runtrailblog July 3, 2010 5:30 PM:


Thanks for the complement.

Shridhar said...

What will be the fate of 2nd option pension on 6th if writ petition withdraw or what will be the judgement of the court God only knows.Unnecessarily canara bank workers have gone to court first let us have pension option and we can fight for that clause for recovery of 2.8% and 156% ect.Because once matter goes to the court no body knows how many days months,years will it take for decision as in the case of 5 years additional to be included that came after 9 years from vrs 2000.So I request those who have gone to court to withdraw the case and let the ext and retirees emp to opt for pension and particularly those who have retired and eagerly waiting for pension for last 15 years at least at the age of 74-75 let them have pension at least for another 5-10 years and i pray god to give them that much life to enjoy.The mistake made by leaders for recovery if not agreed then i think pension option would have not come in true.As Govt/IBA were not at all ready to give 2nd option pension now at least they have agreed and for that we have to scarify for that as we made mistake in 1995.So there should not be repetition in the matter.Pl opt for pension for your sake and for your family also.Thats all.Thanks

vatsan said...

Dear sridhar,
You arugment may be wrong becz already GOI has agreed to give pension for the employees who opt for pension now. The writ is not against pension, but settlement on the pension option legally questioned, so there is no bar withstanding the pension option.Pl. try to understand the idea behind and pl. do not make or create unhealthy comment on the writ . Let them try with court of law. Hope they shd win and atleast more persons will be happy .

Vasu said...

The feelings expressed by Mr.Shridhar can be appreciated only by those who have retired without opting for pension and are eagerly waiting for that elusive second option.While it is understood that present writ is not against the pension,the anxiety is only on account of the time factor.
No one knows for certain how long would it take for the legal journey to come to an end and with what result. Retired persons would like to spend the rest of their lives with at least some level of comfort.
Vasudevan

Skumar said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skumar said...

Dear Chandan

2.8 factor is not prestigious Which way you you have thought.

I think 2nd pension option has came with 5.8 salary then also all CPF optees will opt it.But It should be fixed before as per law of land and rules regulation of pension scheme.

Not a single CPF optee has claimed that they don't want to opt pension due to 2.8 salary of Nov,2007.

All cpf optees 2.8 fund earmarked in banks,If judgment will come in favor then We will get it back and If judgment will not in favor then our fund is already bank has deducted.

As per your comments I think (1)you are thinking that all CPF optees are angry due to 2.8 factor but not all it is 4:6.60% feel injustice for last time stabbing drama.(2) CPF optees have no right to fight for justice.

I have no hobby to be a Messiah(मसीहा).This type mentality is Union Leaders only.Now Messiahs fights against their own people.

I am member of AIBEA.Canara Bank Worker Union ....You know very well but every time you try to speak from my mouth.

You also can't branded yourself An Union Leader Particularly AIBEA.If so,Then I have dozens of questions about Wage and pension settlement and You should be answered.

Everybody knows court cases are only for 2.8 salary deduction not for 2nd pension option,But your union leaders spreading rumors and spoil the mind of unaware members.

Due to court cases delayed in implementation of 2nd pension option.And It is really pain full for retired employees.We are sorry for it.We can't donate Rs.1800 Crs for some foolish people Who believed that they have made members to fool.

And last

WHO UNION LEADERS CAME WITH LEGAL OPINION ON LAST DAY AND ACCEPT IT AND DONE LAST TIME STABBING DRAMA, WHY SAME LEADERS NOW NOT READY TO ACCEPT HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT STAY ORDER AND FIGHT AGAINST THEIR OWN MEMBERS?
IF THEY DON'T ACT THEN WHO HAS OPPOSE THEM?

But Chandanbabu here is Ego problem and not accepting of guilty mentality.

For your knowledge I am not a member of any pf optees forum.
I know that Any forum not contact anybody.I have contact Mr.Subhash Sawantji for their stand about this matter.Because I know all leaders very well.If they(INBEF) has problem then Why signed settlement?Why gave letter of under protest and signed?Its only drama for members to show.

Personally I am not so fool,I am not only happy due to Madras High Court,I am happy due to What not done in past It is happening and its alarm of revolution.

You are better know then me,
So,be wise and leave advocating of leaders and don't try to be Messiah of Retired CPF optees.

Skumar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Skumar said...

Dear Chandan

2.8 factor is not prestigious Which way you you have thought.

I think 2nd pension option has came with 5.8 salary then also all CPF optees will opt it.But It should be fixed before as per law of land and rules regulation of pension scheme.

Not a single CPF optee has claimed that they don't want to opt pension due to 2.8 salary of Nov,2007.

All cpf optees 2.8 fund earmarked in banks,If judgment will come in favor then We will get it back and If judgment will not in favor then our fund is already bank has deducted.

As per your comments I think (1)you are thinking that all CPF optees are angery due to 2.8 factor but not all it is 4:6.60% feel injustice for last time stabbing drama.(2) CPF optees have no right to fight for justice.

I have no hobby to be a Messiah(मसीहा).This type mentality is Union Leaders only.Now Messiahs fights against their own people.

I am member of AIBEA.Canara Bank Worker Union ....You know very well but every time you try to speak from my mouth.

You also can't branded yourself An Union Leader Particularly AIBEA.If so,Then I have dozens of questions about Wage and pension settlement and You should be answered.

Everybody knows court cases are only for 2.8 salary deduction not for 2nd pension option,But your union leaders spreading rumors and spoil the mind of unaware members.

Due to court cases delayed in implementation of 2nd pension option.And It is really pain full for retired employees.We are sorry for it.We can't donate Rs.1800 Crs for some foolish people Who believed that they have made members to fool.

Skumar said...

And last

WHO UNION LEADERS CAME WITH LEGAL OPINION ON LAST DAY AND ACCEPT IT AND DONE LAST TIME STABBING DRAMA, WHY SAME LEADERS NOW NOT READY TO ACCEPT HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT STAY ORDER AND FIGHT AGAINST THEIR OWN MEMBERS?
IF THEY DON'T ACT THEN WHO HAS OPPOSE THEM?

But Chandanbabu here is Ego problem and not accepting of guilty mentality.

For your knowledge I am not a member of any pf optees forum.
I know that Any forum not contact anybody.I have contact Mr.Subhash Sawantji for their stand about this matter.Because I know all leaders very well.If they(INBEF) has problem then Why signed settlement?Why gave letter of under protest and signed?Its only drama for members to show.

Personally I am not so fool,I am not only happy due to Madras High Court,I am happy due to What not done in past It is happening and its alaram of revolution.

You are better know then me,
So,be wise and leave advocating of leaders and don't try to be Messiah of Retired CPF optees.

chandan said...

@Skumar July 4, 2010 1:16 PM:

Dear,

Don't put yourself in the trap of leaders. Mr. Subhash Sawant & C.H.Venkatachalam are working in the same bank and got a debacle in their bank level united indefinite strike call in 2007. There is a possibility, in future days Mr/Com Subash may switch over to AIBEA and may be the president of his bank level award staff union affiliated to be AIBEA or be nominated as workman director of his bank on his switch over.So before mentioning any leader's name on these context, reveal the history of that leader.

I am mere bank clerk and certainly don't have knowledge like a renowned lawyer on the subject of these law of the land etc. So unable to define that subject on this pension issue.

Thanks.

Shrinivas said...

Shrinivas from Madhya Pradesh : It is very interesting to read the blog on Madras High Court Stay in the matter. But the discussion must be very healthy. once again I appeal all concerned viz. union leaders who signed the settlements, appealants, to filed the writ in the interest of employees opted P.F. and now wish to opt pension and also pension optees to have positive application of mind and IBA should come forth to remove all discrepancies in the settlement. Thanks to everybody for paying minute attention on the issue.

vatsan said...

Dear friends ,
i am attaching the letter from Mr. Mr. C H VENKATACHALAM (chv.aibea@gmail.com ] REPLIES ON 3rd July, 2010 TO SOME OF THE QUERIES RAISED BY Rayasam Govind [ rayasamgovind@yahoo.com ]THANKS TO ALLBANKING SOLUTIONS.COM for their earnest approach for the sake of pf optees


We have been forwarded the following mail by Mr Rayasam Govind that he has received from Mr. C H Venkatachalam, who is General Secretary, AIBEA and convenor or the UFBU:-

"From AIBEA we have explained all these things to our units. There are not so many categories. There are only two categories - pension optees and PF optees. We wanted all to come to one category i.e pension optees because pension with DA benefit is the best social security available as of now.

This is what we have achieved in this settlement and that is why it is a historic achievement especially when in Government, the pension policy has changed from 2004 from Defined benefit with DA to contributory scheme. Our achievement is that despite this Government policy, AIBEA/UFBU have achieved the DA linked pension scheme for 270000 employees and another more than 50000 retired staff.

The question is on sharing. From AIBEA, we wanted all to share including pension optees. This stand is known to everyone from the beginning. This was more of trade union approach than on anything else. But just like PF optees now, pension optees became emotional and started going to litigation. On 13th April, 2010 when we made IBA to agree for 1.6 formula, there was no problem. But some people had gone to Court in Andhra Pradesh saying that pension optees are not benefited and hence should not be asked to pay anything. Then on 18th April AIBOA sent a legal opinion to IBA on this point. IBA was getting so many mails, etc. threatening legal cases. Hence IBA referred the matter to Government and their legal opinion.

They wanted either to drop the whole option issue or chose a less vulnerable route. Recovery from all is more vulnerable than only from PF optees.

vatsan said...

coHence IBA changed their stand. They wrote to UFBU on 20th April on this and asked for alternative proposals from UFBU. All the unions of UFBU was informed of this development. But there was no other alternative proposals from any quarter. So the Choice was 1) 1.6, 2) 2.8 or 3) no option at all.

On 26th afternoon, UFBU unanimously decided to try for 1.6 as it was our view. But UFBU could not succeed. The choice for UFBU was, to agreed for 2.8 and take he option for pf optees, or legally try for 1.6 or shelve the option demand now and fight again.

Choice was obvious and by 8th morning, all the unions felt it better to clinch the deal since lacs of bank employees and retirees have been waiting for the option. Today it is easy for anyone to sit on judgment but as AIBEA we know the complexity of the pension option issue.

There is a genuine grievance for some PF optees that 1.6 could have been better and not 2.8. But that could not be achieved. But we must realise that wage revision of 4816 crores is common to all but 4200 crores of allocation by managements is exclusive for PF optees to join the pension scheme. pension optees do not getting out of this allocation. Can this be forgotten.

Instead of understanding the context, impressions have been created and spread. In 1993 also when pension was achieved, such a campaign was unleashed thus converting a big victory into defeat and because of that nearly 3 lac employees and officers lost the pension option.

Now also the same thing is happening- after achieving a miracle like option for more than 3 lacs employees and retirees to join the best pension scheme, employees are fighting. Somebody says i will not pay for PF optees and someone says why pension optees should not pay for me.

The present mess is created not by AIBEA or any of the unions of UFBU, but because of the typical middleclass mindedness of some of the employees whose perception is limited to oneside of the issue. Individuals believe that their wisdom is superior to the collective wisdom. But in a democracy, everyone is entitled to his right of opinion. But sometimes, it hurts the common objective.

For AIBEA, pension optees and PF optees are like our two eyes and both are dear to us. AIBEA has never misguided anyone not to opt for pension. Now also we want all the be in pension scheme and achieve one category.

But when emotions are high and impressions appear to be knowledge, it will take time. We will wait.

As regards 2.8 and 156 %, it is bound to be so. For retirees, the pension liability starts from the day of option. but there will be no further contribution from them. Whereas for existing employees, in addition to onetime contribution now, thee will be further normal contributions till their retirement and their pension liability starts later at the time of their retirement. Naturally, retirees will pay little more %.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Shri. C.H. Venkatachalam is the General Secretary, AIBEA; and Convener, UFBUntinued...

Sanjay Bhatt said...

To,
CHV

Don't file counter affidavit in court tomorrow from AIBEA.

As per your reply What could not done by Unions now Court is going to do.
So, Don't be a hurdle for members welfare.Its true time to show your right affection about members.

As per your reply realities is truly same then AIBEA should not act in court.

Other wise it will naturally prove through court.

Regards.

Jay Vijay said...

Dear Sanjay Bhatt

Rightly said by u
if this what Chv feels which he has conveyed in an email reply then Aibea should not file conter affidavit otheriwse the true face of Unions would come out and if CHv of Aibea really menans what he said in his email reply infact he should put the true picture that Iba had forced them to do it.
But i doubt that Chv can do such a humble deed in the court.
Let us see now the true face of Union leaders are about to be exposed.If chv takes a wrong stand.
It is now they have decide whether they want Unionism to contine or not in Banking Industry.

ramanujamgovind said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ramanujamgovind said...

Unions can prevail upon their Advocate/s to impress upon the Hon’ble High Court to vacate the interim injunction for the reason that the Respondants, being GOI, Banks & their Association, all being organisations of the highiest order of the Country, who may not flee away from implementing the orders of the Hon’ble Court , in case of the subject Writ Petiton is being allowed, and thus no harm will be caused to the Petitioners, in case of the interim injunction is vacated, whereas , on the other hand , if the interim injuction is continued, much harm and damage would be caused to the prospective pensioners, who are waiting for very long years, most of them facing much hardship in life , being in oldage with health hazards and consequential monetary needs, since IBA is duty bound to keep the process of implementaion of pension scheme in abeyance, even in its present form, when there is injunction by the Hon’ble Court and thus pray for vacation of the interim injunction , whereas the wholesome implementation of the scheme is always subject to the outcome of the final orders in the WP, which can now go on in its present form without being delayed, which will definitely save many souls.

Vasu said...

No hearing seems to have taken place today. Might be listed for 7/7/2010 ( Source ; All banking solutions.com)
Be that as it may, would any one clarify whether bilateral settlements entered into by majority unions can be challenged like this. If so would it not open flood gates for similar litigation ? Whether there is any precedence for this and if so what was the final outcome. If any one has any information please share in this blog. Vasudevan

Jay Vijay said...

With ref to rmanujamgovind

First off all what you are saying is right that many retired employees are eagerly awaiting pension. I also agree.
But this historic settlement reached by the great UFBU has made so many blunders. which they them selves have then had to write to IBA to give pension to the resignee retirees.
Very few nos of retirees pf optees are superannuated retiress most are volantarily retired. and as per the existing pension regulation acts interpretation the were not allowed to write vr in their application and were forced to write resignee which means forfeiture of past service and which menas non eligibilty of pension which the angels ( UFBU) didnt care to study and make provision in their so called historic wage/pension settlement and after signing had send letter to iba to come on table and discuss. which Iba has not yet come on table to discuss. so all things first will have to be cleared otherwise how will the retirees will get pension.
This blunders are createdcx by these same UFBU leaders who call this as a Historic wage settlement.
there are so many loopholes in this settlement which makes pension impossible to even to widower and even commutation as said in the formula . These leaders talk big but have not even cared to study to existing pension regulations and how it is applicated by all banks.
They have just bowed downed to IBA boss.
So inspite of a nod from GOI iba cant give instructions is also because of they have to file the writ reply in the ciourts against the saty.
Nealy more then 1 lac banks employees are to be going to officially retire within next 5 years from the existing 7 lacs employees.
Bnaks have not maintaned their pension fund properly as per law. and so iba & banks are worried about how would they pay the pension & commutation to these 1 lac,\. and no provisions to make good the loos in pension fund by respective banks have been made neither load recovery from past 7th & 8th wage settlement has been transfered by banks though it has been recoved from pf & pension optees has been deposited by these banks in the pension fund and so it is bound that very 5 years there is going to be a pension fund gap though it provided in ythe pension regulations act as the responsibilty of banks and not bank employees.

Runtrailblog said...

Court case at Madras High Court - HISTORICAL EXPOSURE - DUPLICITY BY AIBEA / NCBE LEADERS IS NOW FULLY EXPOSED

http://www.allbankingsolutions.com/Madras%20HC%20case%20-%2006072010%20-%20duplicity.htm

Counter Affidavit by AIBEA

http://bit.ly/9lVdkc

kavya said...

The present UFBU or its constituents are not interested in you till 2012. The UFBU leadership termed this agreement as historic agreement. It is high time to expose the dealings of UFBU and get ready for changed and transparent leadership for the next wage settlement if any. we have to use the court cases and the submissions made by them as tools to expose them

Skumar said...

" C H VENKATACHALAM IS LIAR MAN"

Now everybody knows What typed talks done e-mail reply on www.allbankingsolutions.com and What type of affidavit filed in Madras High court.

Today is really BLACK DAY for bank employees,9 unions convener has filed
affidavit is on back ground of totally untruth.

We should be use CHV reply of E-mail as evidence in court.

Personally I can't believe this negative unionism from AIBEA.

If AIBEA & NCBE has not filed affidavit then Whats loss of union and members ?

I think AIBEA has some proud for more membership and so temperature of their mind is high.

We should be think over it.

More Membership means
not behave like God,
not given power to any thing
not given right to not favored to members.

I can't understand in whole process of 9th BPS UFBU is represent their members(bank employees) or represent IBA?

Runtrailblog said...

Very easy transformation as the follows!

AIBEA ---> IBEA -----> IBA

Shridhar said...

Canara bank workers org says stay is on pension issue only for recovery of 2.8% of Nov sal to opt for pension and not for pension option.Dear friends if only 2nd pension is there there should not have been delay to implement by iba.The main clause in pension option is recovery of 2.8% of Nov sal and for retirees 156% then only pension option will be given to them.Then how you say that stay is on only 2.8% recovery and not for pension option.Unless stay is vacated or some decision come from court then only iba will implement pension option.Dont misguide the members as stay is on only 2.8% recovery only.After long time of 15 years pension option has come let the retirees now at the age of 73-74 get pension for some more years before they breath last.I pray God to give them more life to enjoy pension for which they have worked hard,sincere in past and brought the banking industry to the top level much profit making industry.Let us see now once it goes to court how many days,months years it will take as in the case of 5 years additional service for vrs the decision came after 9 years in 2009.Let us see what will happen in future.

chandan said...

It is nothing but a road show by canara bank workers union to gain cheap popularity, that will not last long.

Thanks.

Skumar said...

@Chandan,
What is wrong in Writ petition of canara bank workers union ?

Ok Its for cheap popularity,But it can helping for bankers welfare.

Please stop your praying for AIBEA.

PLEASE READ THE E-MAIL REPLY FROM C H VENKATACHALAM AND READ COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY AIBEA TODAY IN MADRAS HIGH COURT.

Please regularly visit the www.allbankingsolutions.com is useful to your mind.

You have unbeaten bloger from beginning in this blog from union leaders.Now everybody knows your identity.

chandan said...

@Skumar July 8, 2010 12:25 AM:


I don't care for my identity. It is my compulsion, I am in AIBEA. Time will come after two or three months, you can find nothing to be happened from this court-stay etc.I have read the email of C.H.Venkatachalam published here and also in allbankingsolution.com. Our great comrade talks like a child.What's made him UFBU Convenor I don't know. However there is also no better leader available now-a-days in bank unions.Most corrupt leader that I have ever seen in my bank career is one convener of UFBU belongs to NCBE/SBI, who was in helm of affair five years back. now a retired one. So believing any union leader is foolishness. So called canara bank workers union leaders can't be taken out of that.One thing is to add:- If you are so annoyed with a particular union say AIBEA, then why not you join BEFI etc as per your suitability. Many of us here are also doing that. I don't find anything wrong in it.Note it is not union, but my merit that provides me this job through BSRB.

Thanks.

Skumar said...

@Chandan

I have right to anger and show my annoyed because I am a member of AIBEA.

AIBEA is not a cause of recent problems,Actually leaders are cause and spoiling the name of AIBEA.

Crash the union is not a solution or wisdom,But throw out the anti member leaders from union is solution.

BEFI,NCBE etc are same and I can't join other because I am attached sentimentally with AIBEA.But Its not means that We should be bare anti member and anti welfare of members works from it.

Please don't make mistake to understand like me and everybody,I and everybody is matured persons and understands very well 2.8 salary is nothing cost for pension.
For pension 60 or 70 thousand has no value.But way of make foolish own members with unacceptable way and like a representative of IBA not a members.

In short main reason for anger internally is:

"They are Their Men Not Our"

Runtrailblog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Runtrailblog said...

Mr.Chandan has dual personalilty.He is a strong believer and follower of RSS.But he is not interested to join in NOBW. But he never like others criticising leaders of AIBEA.It can be seen here in his comments he posted from the begining.If someone post anything against AIBEA leades or their policy ,Mr Chandan will be there to reply immediately.

Shridhar said...

Read the news that court case at Madras High court for final hearing is posted to-day i.e.on 8th July instead of 6th god bless them at least date is fixed let us see the outcome of the case.As pointed some thousands refund to opt for pension is nothing as compared to get pension of Rs.18000/-to 20,000/-as the case may be.But for retirees it is huge amt 156%those who have retired from 01-11-2007 onwards as vrs op tees have enjoyed int for 9 years on pf amt which they have received but who retired on 31-03-2010 he has also refund 156% this is very injustice to them.The refund should have been based on number of years he received pf.Now of no use let us refund 156% and get pension which is much beneficial taking into a/c the rate of int on deposits ect.One thing at least retirees prior to 27-11-2009 will get full pension upto the date of appl for commutation.Some how 56% is compensated by that.So i request our leaders to pursue and follow up for early implementation of pension option once court order come out.

chandan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chandan said...

@Runtrailblog July 8, 2010 4:41 AM:


I had experience with Bharatiya Majdoor Sangha during my days in Telecommunication during 1992.There I hadn't joined in CITU affiliated Federation due to ideological factor but had to face problem latter on.So my policy is to with the majority one, thereafter.It is my own policy and I am not advising any one to adopt it.

In my state communist doesn't have even 1% political base.So whether you are in AIBEA or BEFI or anything it doesn't fetch much.I am a human being and a human being shouldn't have a dual character. Otherwise he/she must need attention of the physician to get cure. Hope in your estimate I am atleast not be a patient to that effect.


@ Skumar July 8, 2010 2:35 AM:

I salute you for your chastity for AIBEA. But please note I am not of that kind.Its my discretion to be or not to be with them.I can't take the contract to clean the Ganges.Its my bad luck I joined in a brothel(bank) despite selected in better GOI jobs during my career days long back.

Thanks.

(Earlier post repost here after a small typographical error correction.)

Contact Us

Viewers may share any information with the administrator in this email shyamali00@gmail.com
Any news, if approved, may be published in this blog under his /her name.

.................RECENT HEADLINES

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Blog Archive

Bookmark This Page

Bookmark and Share
All the information published in this webpage is submitted by users or free to download on the internet. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this page and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis. All the other pages you visit through the hyper links may have different privacy policies. If anybody feels that his/her data has been illegally put in this webpage, or if you are the rightful owner of any material and want it removed please email me at "shyamali00@gmail.com" and I will remove it immediately on demand. All the other standard disclaimers also apply.