We have already put up the analysis of the circular of AIBOC dated 12th 2015 (Click Here to Read the Full Circular).  Now Mr S Ramachadran has exposed the hollowness of the claim of IBA that it did not have the necessary mandate from banks to discuss the issues of retirees.   We place below his letter sent to

S. Ramachandran                                                                             Kunal Icon, Building -A8

Former General Manager, Bank of Baroda,                                      Flat No. 104, Pimple Saudagar,

Former Chairman & CEO, The Sangli Bank Ltd.                              Aundh Camp, Pune – 411027,

(Now merged with ICICI Bank Ltd)                                                 Tel: 020 27201012.

Former Administrator, Madhavapura Mercantile                               E-mail id: ramans1938@gmail.com 

Co-Op Bank Ltd ( Ahmedabad )

Former Director General, Maratha Chamber of

Commerce & Agriculture, Pune.                  

Date :18^th June’2015 

     MOST URGENT  

To 

 Shri Hasmukh Adhia,                                                              

Secretary, Departmental of Financial Services,                                  

Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building,                                          

3^rd Floor, 10, Parliament Street,                                                           

New Delhi -100001

Dear Sir,

SUBJECT- STATEMENT RECORDED IN RECORD NOTE OF DISCUSSION OF IBA AND UFBU DATED   25-5-2015 RELATING TO PENSIONERS ISSUE- IS IT TRUE AND WHETHER IT IS REQUIRED? THAT  “THE PERIODIC WAGE REVISION EXERCISE BASED ON MANDATE FROM MEMBER BANKS COVER ONLY WAGES AND SERVICE CONDITIONS OF SERVING EMPLOYEES “

This has reference to my letter dated   28/05/2015   whereby I had  highlighted the unconstitutional and perverse approach of Indian Bank’s Association (IBA)  in dealing with the issues of retirees in the recently concluded wage negotiation with United Forum of Bank Unions(UFBU) , more specifically in respect of the Record note 2 wherein they have stated that the issues of retirees would only be dealt with as a welfare measure since  contractual relationship does not exist  between the banks and  the retirees. 

While I have given a detailed response to the above averments as well as other points of the IBA in my above cited letter, I have to state the following in respect of another statement that appears in the prefatorial remarks of the Record note 2 which reads as under:

“The periodic wage revision exercise based on mandate from member banks cover only wages and service conditions of serving employees.”

Contextually when you read the above statement of IBA, it is clear and categorical that there is no mandate from member banks for the IBA to discuss issues relating to retirees and therefore, IBA feels that whatever they are doing, it is a “WELFARE MEASURE” flowing out of gratis. How far this statement is true can be seen from the following .

In this context, I have to state the following:

   1.       The issues relating to grant of  Pensionary benefits to Bank employees have been raised by employees organizations from around 1985 onwards and IBA has been discussing these  issues since then without raising this bogey  of lack of mandate even once;

   2.       Even at the time of implementation of Pension scheme way back in 1995, not even once the IBA has stated that this retiral benefit is a welfare measure and is being implemented without mandate from the PSBs.

   3.       Even when the issue of second option was raised in early 2000 and finally agreed upon in 2010, this bogey of lack of mandate to discuss pension related issue was never raised even once.

   4.       When the 10 BPS became due in November, 2012, and the demands were raised by the UFBU, IBA  never raked up this issue for almost 3 years.

 5.       Further, when the issue of  grant  and updation of Pension to General Managers who were elevated to the position of ED and subsequently to CMDs position was raked up by  a group of CMDs and finally agreed upon by the Ministry of Finance, the issue of lack of mandate from PSBs  as well as terming the pensioners issue as a  “ welfare measure “were not raised by IBA.

   6.       In fact IBA is well aware of the fact that there is no need for such separate mandate since under Regulation 45 of the Officer’s Service Regulation (OSR) below the caption “Terminal Benefits”, Provident Fund, Pension and Gratuity are covered.  Thus, when Pension is a part of Officer’s service Regulation and the mandate has been given by PSBs to discuss and settle scales of pay and allowances and other service conditions of officers, it is a clear mandate to discuss all issues governing Officer’s service condition including pension which is covered under regulation 45 of OSR.