AIRBEA Thanks UFBU

[Prasad C N]

Dear friends,

We are enclosing a copy of the letter by our Apex Organisation, All India Retired Bank Employees' Association thanking UFBU not only for extension of 100% DA nutralisation, also for ensuring all Pre-2002 pensioners, irrespective of their Basic Pension, get some increase. 

Many of us were complaining and blaming UFBU, by making it responsible for non-introduction of UFBU.  When we blame them for non-extension of any benefit, we should be generous enough to acknowledge their efforts, when benefit is extended.  It is pertinant to point out that in Reserve Bank of India, nothing was paid to those who were getting pension with 100% DA.  But, Ex-gratia for them is also introduced and all pensioners and family pensioners who are already enjoying 100% DA would also get some increase.  Definately, UFBU should be commended for this.

We are also happy because this benefit is out of an agreement.  Therefore, this benefit cannot be taken back.  I am extracting a portion from the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein payment of pension itself was withdrawn.

This extract is taken from State of H.P. v. Rajesh Chander Sood, (2016) 10 SCC 77 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 730 : 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1002 at page 164

95. Our determination, with reference to all the issues canvassed above, would also answer the question left open in para 73 above. Namely, whether or not the contingent right, as was vested in the respondent employees, was binding or irrevocable. We may now sum up the position determined by us, in the foregoing paragraphs. It is no doubt true that we have concluded that the 1999 Scheme, created a contingent right in the respondent employees. The respondent employees comprise of all those employees of corporate bodies, who had opted for the 1999 Scheme, immediately on its having been introduced; all those, who were deemed to have opted for the 1999 Scheme by not having exercised any option; and all those who were appointed after the introduction of the 1999 Scheme. The first issue that arises is, whether any express right or obligation existed between the respondent employees and the State Government. One can understand such a claim arising out of an obligation between an employer and his employees, where there is a quid pro quo — a trade-off based on a relationship (as between, an employer and employee). We have, however, concluded that there was no such relationship between the State Government, and the respondent employees. All the corporate bodies in which the respondent employees were/are engaged, are independent juristic entities. It is, therefore, apparent that the claim raised by the respondent employees, is not based on any right or obligation between the parties. We have also examined the submissions advanced by the learned counsel premised on various constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India), but have found that no right can be stated to have been violated thereunder. We have also examined the other legal submissions, advanced on behalf of the respondent employees, and have found the same, as unjustified. The issue whether administrative review was permissible after the 1999 Scheme had become operational, has been answered in the affirmative. And finally, we have concluded, that the exercise of such power, while issuing the repeal notification, was based on due consideration. We, therefore, hereby uphold, the legality and constitutionality of the Notification dated 2-12-2004.

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

[R Balaji]

Dear Mr Prasath

what about pension updation ?

I feel that this may be delayed for few years since already  next bipartite discussions commenced.

regards

R BALAJI

--
Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/1853332438.597575.1690713849748%40mail.yahoo.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

INTERNAL FIGHTING IN UFBU

AIBOA Hits Back 

—————————

WHO IS PLAYING HAND IN GLOVE ? IN WHOSE INTEREST? 

—————————————

AIBOA to UFBU Convener 

UFBU:92:2023 

29TH July 2023.

The Convenor,

United Forum of Bank unions, CHANDIGARH.

Comrade,

We are constrained to place on record the casual way the issues are being handled by UFBU under present leadership. 

Though, the list is long, we restrict ourselves on the following points.

2. Our organisation gave the strike notice for 2 days in March 2022, projecting our demands on Industry, on unresolved residual issues and extending solidarity actions with Central trade unions for the two days strike. 

On the directions of the Labour authorities on residual issues, discussions were held by IBA. 

It was AIBOA, which did the job required to break the impasse. Then, gates were opened for officers’ Union and workmen unions separately for couple of rounds of discussions.

3. In this year too, once again two days strike call was given by UFBU, focusing three main issues :

A) 5 days week, 

B) Up dation Pension and C) commencement of wage talks along with other pending issues. 

The strikes were averted in the background of commencement of the talks by IBA. 

On 31st Jan, 2023 and 28th February 2023 two rounds of discussions were held. 

A commitment was obtained from the workmen side that IBA will write to the Government with the commencement of working of the banks from 09.50 am to 5.30 pm. 

In the event, if DFS insists for additional 5 minutes extra with the consent of workmen leaders, they may approach DFS for their concurrence. But best reasons unknown to us, you were not present on 28.02.2023. 

Even to come out with a circular it took nearly 

7 days giving rise to very many question. 

It is nearing 5 months completion, the issue is finding no focus in the discussion held recently in successive rounds. 

More than the money compensation, work-force requires work-life balance. 

When LIC unions could achieve it from 15th April 2021 why not us till date?

4. Insurance backed Hospitalisation Scheme : 

On IBA suggesting that the representatives of three unions

 (AIBOC, NCBE AND AIBEA)) 

would constitute the small committee with specific reference to the costing exercise by capping the item wise expenses, it was categorically placed that the meeting of all representatives should be held with IBA as that of Profit Linked Incentive meeting conducted earlier on our collective submissions to you in the meeting held at New Delhi in your Parliament Street Bank branch -Board room on 11th September 2019.

 FUNCTIONING OF UFBU UNDER YOUR CONVENORSHIP.

 

a) Though it was pointed out by two constituents, in the meeting held at Mumbai at Hotel Avion you turned down our submissions, for the best reasons known to couple of representatives. 

Other constituents have been kept under dark. 

Ultimately, the suggestions made in the meeting was implemented by IBA. 

On 21.06.2023 all the unions (9 + 1) who were party to the 25.05.2015 and 11.11.2020 were invited to participate except us, purely taking shelter of veiled threat let loose by one of the constituents. 

First time, UFBU had taken the role of the management to deny the entry to AIBOA elected representative, without informing the expressions/decisions of the other constituents from the meeting held on 21st June 2023 at IBA Office. 

We conducted ourselves as a responsible organisation not to be an impediment to you. But knowing well the stand of AIBOA, you did not restrict/deny the entry to an officer purported to have representative character in IBA on 21st June 2023. 

It was given to understand that he signed the attendance sheet and remained in the meeting. One of constituents of UFBU wanted it purposely to happen.

b) We wrote to you in detail on 02.07.2023, 12.07.2023 and also 20.07.2023 in connection with the denial of representatives to participate in the discussion after the court case filed by the two individuals in Dwarka, New Delhi. 

The operative portion was quoted clearly in the letter, expecting you to respond making your stand candid and clear to us. 

As usual, you remained non communicative to AIBOA.

c) Once again you had only forwarded the letter to constituents including AIBOA, enclosing the IBA letter dated 21st July 2023 addressed to you with your covering letter dated 24th July 2023. In turn we have provided the name of the representative for participation in the discussions.

d) On 28th July 2023, in the IBA office, in spite of our convincing and cogent assurance to you by Com. Alok Khare Chairman AIBOA and the undersigned, you negated our participation based on the manufactured document.

e) On our taking up the matter with the IBA authorities in person on the same day, it was reported that it was 

UFBU which had restricted our participation in the discussions held on three occasions. 

Our organisation would like to know from where, as a convenor, you have drawn the authority to deny our organisational participation. 

If any provisions of conduct rules for UFBU enacted and adopted by you in your tenure for the past seven years, will you please make it available to all the constituents immediately on receipt of this communication.

f) In addition to the above, why you were hesitant to provide the prepared documents of understandings of few constituents arrived at behind the back of the other constituents. Leave alone one up man ship, but why not the same is discussed in the UFBU meeting prior to signing the same to understand the contents, pros and cons of signing such a document in the matter of Hospitalisation scheme applicable to all banks other than SBI. Strangely enough, trade unions are expected to retain the facility achieved, if not improvement clinched. Reduction of coverage to the senior citizens, when Right to Health is the subject matter of the Nation and constituents were made to sign the retrograde scheme delinking the retirees from the serving employees contrary to

the first understandings signed on 25.05.2015. Absolutely an adverse step by UFBU.

5. UP-DATING PENSION HAS BEEN SEALED ONCE AND FOR ALL: 

While correction of the mistake by introducing two sets of D.A. compensation ie prior to 01.05.2005 and after that 100% DA neutralisation committed by unions on 02.06.2005, the same was struck down by supreme court in March 2018. Please refer the circular issued by IBA in this regard.

Though we may claim it is baby step for success from roof top, surely it shuts the doors of up dation of Pension to all by government notification, as available to RBI / NABARD from 1.1.1986 till 1.11.2017 in the near future

In fitness of things, to enable to understand the approach pursued by you as UFBU convenor in dealing with men and matters, we request you to communicate your response and also provide the copy of the Codes drafted by you if any and convene a full -fledged meeting of the UFBU authorised representatives of three from the constituents for the betterment of the workforce presently in the banks.

Yours comradely,

/S.NAGARAJAN/ GENERAL SECRETARY..

————————————-

Cc to: All constituents of UFBU

—————————————

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:05 AM 'Prasad C N' via bankpensioner <bankpe...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

--

[NSS]

Friends

Pension Settlement 1993 was also an agreement. UFBU did not take any action to enforce the agreement. This inaction of UFBU had resulted in pre November 2002 pensioners losing their legitimate entitlement for more than 18 years. The present agreement is superfluous, and it can only serve the purpose of denying arrears to the Pre Nov 2002 pensioners. It ap-pears that the Government, especially the Honourable Finance Minister wanted to put an end to the injustice and therefore IBA had to relent. The pre Nov 2002 pensioners should be grateful to our Honorable Finance Minister.

Regarding the Judgment in the State of HP case, the employees should have restricted their claim on the Corporation and not on the Government. Their right to receive pension was from the Corporation and not on the Government. 

Following observations of the Honourable Supreme Court of India are relevant.

. In Punjab State Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd V Registrar Co-operative Societies.(2022) 4 SCC 363 Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows.

“57. In our view, non-availability of financial resources would not be a defence available to the appellant Bank in taking away the vested rights accrued to the employees that too when it is for their socio-economic security. It is an assurance that in their old age, their periodical payment towards pension shall remain assured. The pension which is being paid to them is not a bounty and it is for the appellant to divert the resources from where the fund can be made available to fulfil the rights of the employees in protecting the vested rights accrued in their favour.”   

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian

[kds nair]

Are you aware that SC has rejected our demand for 100 percent da?So it is better to wait for ufbu/aibea to do something in the matter.

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/ca608e7d-202a-4b46-af7e-f4692da17162n%40googlegroups.com.

[Narayanan Kasthurirengan]

Dear friends,

 With my limited knowledge, I am unable to understand the relevance of the judgement quoted by Com Prasad. The judgement appears to be about issues pertaining to pension paid not under the scheme formulated by the employer and there is no issue in the judgement that fits into our issues.  Mr Prasad may kindly excuse me if my understanding is incorrect

K NARAYANAN 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW3uUvJ9HNw0v8X-xvojf1j4OD-AQkgx%2BUcBTmWF%2B5VpRQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[JSOMA SHEKARA]

While acknowledging that achievement is remarkable I am afraid we have to give ZERO rating for UFBU and retiree organizations for this achievement for the following reasons.

1. In 2005 UFBU did great in Justice to retirees by agreeing to disallow 100% DA to pre 2002 retirees and rejecting 50% Basic pension and commutation arrears from DOR.

But  when the Central Govt during COVID period freezed DA for a few months, same UFBU strongly protested that DA compensation is being paid to compensate for rising prices and it is an anti labour attitude of the Government. Are pre 2002 retirees not affected by Price rise?

2. Further for the last 18 Years UFBU neither assisted those fighting court case nor took up the issue seriously with IBA. It was almost forgotten by UFBU.

3. Retiree assns also did not collect data of the number of pre 2002 retirees and total cost of 100% DA so that issue can be negotiated seriously with IBA.

4. As NSS pointed out some positive developments are taking place regarding Pensioners demands not because of UFBU/IBA or retiree orgns but solely because of Pro pensioners attitude of Present  Hon.FM Smt. Nirmala seetharaman.

5.That too 100% DA development was possible after a committee was appointed by FM to look into 100% DA and Updation of SBI pensioners.

6. On 28th July UFBU simply signed minutes without even demanding benefit from back date, indicating that terms and conditions of the benefit were recommended by committee and there was nothing to negotiate or discuss.

--

Visit our blog site http:://bankpensioner.blogspot.com
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bankpensioner" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bankpensione...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/ca608e7d-202a-4b46-af7e-f4692da17162n%40googlegroups.com.

[Asok Bhaumik]

Absolutely true.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0m06JgQfzdzFm7j8Ta%3DLwMt0s%3D1Cgzqr_vBm5sYT%3DSUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Prasad C N]

Dear sir,

If what you say is true, why Pension Revision has not taken place ?

If what you say is correct, why nothing was paid to Family Pensioners who are already in 30% slab drawing meager Family Pension, which may even be less than Rs.6,000/-, while Family Pension of many increased by over Rs,29,000/- ? 

Thanks, a Million. 

With regards,

Prasad C N

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/CAM%3DeiW0m06JgQfzdzFm7j8Ta%3DLwMt0s%3D1Cgzqr_vBm5sYT%3DSUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[kds nair]

When updation is sanctioned,family pensioners also will be taken care of.Please try to gain benefits one after the other.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bankpensioner/844049470.991646.1691054767622%40mail.yahoo.com.

[NSS]

Sir

100% DA issue and Updation are not of equal importance.  DA issue was more serious as it severely affected large number of elderly people. Immediately after she took over as FM, number of elderly pensioners met the FM and explained the paltry amount of pension being paid to them. She assured them to look into the issue. Accordingly, three years ago she asked IBA to resolve the issue. She must have thought that being a genuine grievance, IBA will take immediate action. She was not aware that IBA listens only to UFBU. Three years passed and there was no improvement.  Shre must have asked IBA to give 100% DA immediately. This is how we got 100% DA all of a sudden without any struggle or negotiation. Updation also will come if the FM feels it to be of importance.

Regards

N.Sankara Subramanian