Thursday, May 28, 2015

Negative Role OF IBA On Pension For Bank Staff

Xth Bipartite Settlement is signed by United Front of Bank Unions (UFBU) And Indian Bank's Association (IBA) .

Bank employees of Public sector banks should summarise reasons for poor performance of PSB in profit and place before GOI to stop GOI tarnishing image of bank staff. Otherwise GOI will continue to impose their ideas and work load on PSBs and continue to build pressure on making finance to some sector or the other  and also advise for write off of bad loans . And when Bank's profit is adversely affected , they will deny wage hike in forthcoming Bipartite Settlement. Bankers should start building  pressure on GOI from now itself for making XI Bipartite settlement a grand success.

It is banks which at least earn profit every year despite all wrong policies of the government, despite  several administrative shortcomings and legal lacunas. There are many departments of Central government which do not earn any profit or do not even serve common men but their staff get all benefits and all terminal benefits. There are many Public sector undertakings which are running in losses for years and decades, still they are paid all  benefits including bonuses. Government may make budgetary allocation for all such loss making entities as they infuse capital in sick banks or in weak banks.

Why not GOI can make budgetary allocation for payment of pension to retired bank staff and bonuses to  working bank staff ?

Some employees blame trade union leaders saying that leaders are retired and hence do not care for young bankers and working bank staff. In such case working staff should choose leaders from working staff and plan strategy for putting before New Charter of Demand for future settlements. They should start consultation process from now itself  to frame Charter of Demands for XI Wage Revision for public sector bank staff keeping in view the probable structure of central pay employees after 7th pay commission report.

Some section of bank staff  are of the opinion that IBA is not the competent body to negotiate with bank unions. Some of them are of the view that GOI should directly talk to union leaders on the issue of wage revision.  Such employees should come forward with suggestion as to who should replace IBA in negotiating process.

It is wise to plan from now than to blame leaders when they start negotiation process with IBA. Further if bank staff aspire to join hands and to tag their future with Central Pay Commission , they should go for referendum on this controversial issue too now itself.  So that a unanimous or consensus view is arrived at whether to continue with process of bipartite settlement or to become  part of pay commission set for central government employees . For this purpose banks may organise district level voting at all India basis to arrive at a view which may be applicable and acceptable to all bank staff.

It is worthwhile to mention here that GOI is most likely to announce "one rank one pension " scheme for armed forces. ON the same logic , why bank employees should also not be given the facility of one rank one pension . After all when bank staffs serve bank for three to four decades and spoils entire life for betterment of banks they serve ,even affecting their own family life , they deserve better treatment after their retirement. GOI cannot make excuses of lack of paying capacity .

IBA says that they are under obligation to revise wages of working employees and not  retired employees. IBA says that revision of pension is a part of social welfare agenda and they will look into demands of pensioners in due course.

Why ? 

Are retired bank staff a load on GOI and employees of central government and that of armed forces not such burden? 

This question has to be answered now to avoid  to provide safety to retired bank staff.
 
When GOI can make budgetary allocation for payment of pension to central government employees , loss making public sector undertakings, BSNL, Airlines, etc and also for armed forces, why they cannot do the same budgetary allocation  for bank staff too.

After all, bank staff belong to core financial sector of the country and it is they who can protect health of banks  as armed forces protect the country from enemy country. It is bank staff who take part in all social welfare schemes of the government as armed forces take part in relief measures.

There is no reason to deprive bank staff of respectable wage hike or for respectable pension only because asset quality of banks is facing deterioration and banks are facing erosion in profits. It is poor management of banks by GOI and exploitation of banks by GOI only which results in lesser profits and greater bad debts in public sector banks. As such bank staff cannot be punished for fault of GOI and top officials of banks.

http://importantbankingnews2.blogspot.in/2015/05/profit-of-private-banks-beats-public.html


http://importantbankingnews2.blogspot.in/2015/05/restructuring-bad-loans-or-selling-bad.html

http://importantbankingnews2.blogspot.in/2015/05/how-sbi-booked-higher-profit-and-lower.html


What is one rank one pension?

One Rank, One Pension is an old demand of Indian military personnel. The term means armed forces personnel holding the same rank and same length of service will get the same pension, regardless of the last drawn pay. The Indian government accepted the demand in 2014. In its July 2014 Budget, Government of India allocated ₹1000 crore for this scheme. Due to some technical calculations and interpretations to be concluded by the related ministry there was a delay in the implementation of the scheme in 2014.

Recent meetings have been on the positive note indicating that the scheme will be implemented before the approval of budget of India 2015-16. [3]due to a fear that civilian retired employees of central govt may also demand drop the defence minister decided to rename the defence pensions as military pension which could not possibly claimed by civilians sought to put the proposal before parliament in the budget session ii of the 2015 commencing from April 2015 and promised implementation in may 2015.This was disclosed by an ex-servicemen org member who had a meeting with Parrikar on 23 April 2015 and put up on the official web site pib nic .in later on when the DM spoke in a civilian function.

While inaugurating a top defence accounts dept controllers meet on 30 April 2015 he asked the dad officials to be prepared to implement OROP orders shortly. There are unsatisfied elements and opposition party sympathisers in ESM ,as veterans are called in India, community who sledge the govt as well as defence minister for delay in implementation of the scheme but in fact govt of BJP led by Narendra Modi is losing goodwill of mostly pro ESM community in state elections as witnessed in Haryana and in Delhi. This could also reflect in electoral reverses in crucial states like Bihar for BJP where there are considerable ESM population who could stand still for the party or give them thumping victory for the saffron party with OROP announcement.

Pension payment by bank management to retired bank staff is not a charity by government to retired staff. It is not a third terminal benefit like that of SBI or other central government services or like old age pension. Pension for retired bank staff is in lieu of contributory Provident fund.

Bank staff who have opted for pension has refunded banker's contribution towards PF. Lacs of bank staff had to forgo thousands and  lacs of rupees out of arrears  generated after wage revision in IX Bipartite settlement to motivate IBA, UFBU and  Government  to buy second option  for pension.
 
Where has that money gone?
Have banks stopped contributing in pension fund?
Are banks treating that fund as part of profit?
This has to be investigated.

It is to be noted that many banks did not make any contribution  or made inadequate provision for pension fund before 2010 and it was exposed by financial experts after analysis of annual report of many banks including SBI . AT that time RBI had permitted some banks to amortise accumulated expenses in five years as a special case. Many banks in the past had inflated profits by not making adequate provision towards expenses in terminal benefits accruing to bank staff after their retirement.
 
 It is unfortunate that bank management think Contribution towards PF or Pension in NPS  as a part of burden on banks . Management of public sector banks want to inflate profit by curtailing the rights of bank employees and by not making adequate provision towards these financial, legal and moral obligations. There is no doubt in it that  Banks are legally and morally bound to contribute equal amount of PF towards pension fund as much as employee is contributing towards PF . In case of bank staff coming under NPS scheme , banks are to contribute 10 percent of basic and DA(Both).

Banker's contribution towards PF or towards pension or in NPA scheme is a mandatory requirement and is part of salary . As such when basis pay of working employees is raised, PF contribution towards PF fund or contribution towards pension fund is supposed to be increased and hence there should necessarily be a rise in pension amount and rise in benefits accruing to retirees.

In case of major part of government employees , government has to made budgetary allocation for payment of pension , but in case of only Banks, that government has not to make any budgetary allocation , it is largely the profit generated out of pension fund which is given in form of pension to bank staff on retirement. It is earned by bank staff  by their three to four decade long service to banks. It is not the alms which bank management or GOI give to retired bank staff. And I am of strong view that if each bank honestly contribute to PF/Pension fund as per rule every month , there will be no scarcity of money for payment of fund and for hike in pension.

When a staff works for 3 to 4 decades, his loyalty is compensated by employer by contributing every month at least ten percent of basic pay towards pension fund and then it is the duty of trust or managing body which manages pension fund to earn more and more interest or profit by investing in various funds and share more and more with retirees.

It is therefore not a case of social welfare , not even a social security step but it is the fruit of trees which employees nourishes for decades. As such IBA and UFBU should immediately stop misinterpretation of pension payment policy and stop curtailing the rights of retirees of getting enhanced pension after each Bipartite Settlement.

On the one hand government is considering the proposal for sanctioning one rank one pension for all armed force personnel, on the other, same GOI is trying to  stop hike in pension to retired banks .

It is important to note here that government departments like BSNL, Coal India Ltd ,Railways incur losses in huge volume, still they are paid bonus or ex-gratia every year  whereas bank staff are denied such bonuses even though each bank earn profit every year.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL  AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDE  OF


IBA AND UFBU TOWARDS RETIREES EXPOSED-POINT
 
WISE REJOINDER TO RECORD NOTE OF DISCUSSION OF

IBA AND UFBU RELATING TO RETIREES ISSUES






By  S. Ramachandran  

(source: Allbankingsolutions.com  By Rajesh Goyal )

We reproduce hereunder the letter from S Ramachandran addressed to Secretary, DFS, which gives point wise rejoinder to the points listed in the Record Note relating to retirees issues in the 10th BPS.  The affected retire must share it with other retired bankers and may give their suggestions in the comments column :-

 

From:

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.                  
 
BY SPEED POST
 
                                                                                                   Date :28thMAY’2015
    MOST URGENT  
To                                            
 Shri Hasmukh Adhia,                                                              
Secretary, Departmental of Financial Services,                                  
Ministry of Finance, Jeevan Deep Building,                                          
3rd Floor, 10, Parliament Street,                                                            
New Delhi -100001.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                              
DEAR SIR,
 
SUBJECT –UNCONSTUTIONAL AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDE 

 OF IBA AND UFBU TOWARDS RETIREES EXPOSED-

POINTWISE REJOINDER TO RECORD NOTE OF

 DISCUSSION OF IBA AND UFBU RELATING TO RETIREES

 ISSUES
 
This is in reference to the Record  note  of discussion between Indian Bank’s Association and United Forum of Bank Union on the issue   and demands relating to retirees of Bank’s held on 25th May, 2015 at Mumbai.  On the face of it, it is quite evident that the record note has been prepared as an afterthought only with a view to show that the UFBU has taken up the issues of retirees with  all seriousness. However, the record note reveals very distinctly the cover up operation   and the nexus between the two parties in belying the long standing demands of retirees.  I have furnished hereunder my considered views on various averments of the record note:
 
AVERMENTS OF THE IBA
 
IBA maintained that any demands of retirees can be examined only as a welfare measure as contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees. The periodic wage revision exercise based on mandate from member banks cover only wages and service conditions of serving employees. Retirement benefits are based on service conditions prevailing at the time of retirement of an employee and these do not change with settlement.  
 
My OBSERVATIONS
 
 
At the outset, it is unfortunate that the Bankers who are represented in the Personnel committee of IBA are making such prefatorial  statements in the Joint Note 2  without understanding its implications  and  without questioning the wisdom of officials of IBA who have framed these opening remarks. Worse still is the uncontested manner in which the UFBU “leadership” has accepted these prefatorial remarks without even recording their views on it. Besides indicating their bankruptcy of mind, it also shows degree of collusion between the parties to the joint note 2.  Now I proceed to give my detailed observations  as under:
 
 1.            I strongly object to the usage of the word “Welfare measure” for Pension and Pension related issue. The world over, Pension and its related issues are considered as “Social security measure” and not as a “Welfare measure” which has the connotation of giving some benefits out of gratis, charities or a public aid. We the pensioners are not beggars to seek alms from IBA.  Please visit any site on Pension including the PFRDA  and Government of India site,   or read any judgment of Supreme court, you will see that Pension is considered  a social security measure and not as a welfare measure and when you consider  it as a social security measure, it encompass the whole “life” and not restricted to the age of retirement.  They are also called as retirement benefits and superannuation benefits and encompasses  provident fund, gratuity and pension scheme.  Pension Scheme in particular is in the  form of guaranteed life annuity thus insuring against the risk of longevity and inflation.
 
 2.            We may in this connection point out that the antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1) where-in the Supreme Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.
 
 3.            Summing up the judgment in the case of S.P.Gupta  Vs Union of India, the Supreme court stated that :
 
“ it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you gave your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a Government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to be a deferred portion of the compensation  for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon.
 
 4.            Further, in the case of  M.R.Prabhakar & Ors. vs Canara Bank & Ors. on 3 October, 2012 ( (2012) 9 SCC 971),  it has been clearly enunciated that voluntary retirement maintains the relationship for the purposes of grant of retiral benefits, in view of the past service. On account of maintaining the relationship for the purposes of retiral benefits, second option to retirees was given. Moreover, in the relationship is between the banks and retirees, the IBA and constituents’ of UFBU are privy to the relationship between the parties and they have no locus standi to say that there is no contractual relationship between banks and retirees. On account of such contractual relationship, monthly pension is being paid to retirees. Retirees demands are not welfare measures, they are made as per the existing regulations. Payment of pension is not welfare measure, it is for the past work done to the organization/country. In Nakara case, it has been held that Pension is their statutory, inalienable, equally enforceable right and it has been earned by the sweat of their brow. As such it should be fixed, revised and modified and changed in ways not entirely dissimilar to the salaries granted to serving employees. ( 1983 LLI 0101 SC ) 
 
 5.            Therefore to term the Pension and pension related issues as “  welfare measure” is not out of ignorance of IBA but a deliberate attempt to mislead the  retiree which has been accepted by our great netas willingly.
 
 
 6.            Now on the statement of IBA that contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees, I have to state that it is  a well established fact on account of various judicial pronouncement that Pension is only a deferred portion of the compensation for service rendered. Bankers have worked hard beyond normal working hours which fact cannot be denied as the Association leaders have been demanding for fixed working hours  or alternatively compensation. The demand for holiday on Saturday is a culmination of this demand.  Thus, bankers have toiled hard, given their brain, brawn and blood during their hey-days and hence pension is only a compensation for their loyal service. Therefore, the contractual relations extend beyond the date of retirement.  It is for the reason that Pension is a deferred compensation that DA component is added to it and adjusted every quarter/half yearly.
 
 7.             If there is no contractual relationship with the retirees, why is that the Government of India is considering “one rank, one pension” issue of thousands of Armed Forces personnel? Is it not that there is periodic updation of Pension of Government servants?  Is it not that Pension Adalat are functioning at various centres to resolve the issues of retirees? Is it that Government of India is ill-advised by a battery of legal luminaries to consider pension related issues of pensioners? In fact, IBA  way back in March 2009 had issued a circular to all the Public Sector Banks, based on Government of India directive to establish a grievance cell  to address the grievances of retirees. A Further, in the same circular, PSBs were advised to holding discussions with representatives of the Association of Retired Employees periodically  say once in a half year so that grievances can be settled across the table.                         

  All the above acts of the government clearly and categorically lead us to only one thing that the Government in its wisdom has given due credence to  the judicial pronouncements and has considered it necessary to continue its obligation towards the retirees by way of improvements in pension/ family pension and so on. When this is the fact, the moot question is  that – is  the wisdom of those who govern the country less than that of IBA when they state that  there is no contractual obligation post superannuation?
Further, so far banks have not adhered to the issue of holding periodical meetings with Retired officers association.
 
 
 8.            In fact Pension  and the Pension Trust is the umbilical cord that sustains the contractual relationship of an employee post retirement.
 
 9.            Further,  If there are no contractual relations of an employee with the Bank post retirement,  then why is that  the IBA is discussing Wages and service conditions issues with majority of Union and Association leaders who are retirees although they may be representing their unions and associations.?   Arguing further, whether Public Sector Banks have given the mandate to discuss Wages and Service conditions issues with retirees? Going by the same logic, IBA should take the stand that they would discuss wages and service conditions issues only with serving employees.  IBA could have just followed SBI’s stand of discussing service condition matters only with serving employees. The fact of the matter is that IBA has a set of unprofessional people with old mindset and negative frame work of mind who do not know the difference between a Superannuation /retirement benefit / social security measure and welfare scheme and worst of all they do not want to see the issues in a broader canvass. They are cosy in dealing with these “re-tired” netas who have neither the time to apply their mind  nor do they understand the law of the land leave alone various decision of the courts on the issue.
 
10.            We may further point out that the Board of LIC as well as RBI has considered the issue of updation of pension and have recommended to the Government for consideration.  Does it mean that LIC Board has acted without understanding the issue of “contractual relationship”?  
 
11.            PSBs represented by IBA should act responsibly as a representative of model employer rather than discarding all the Pensioners in the same manner in which some children discard  their parents once their purpose is over.
 
12.            Pension fund which is primarily for the benefit of pensioners is being managed without any representation from pensioner. Sometimes the pension fund yielded negative return due to wrong investment strategy adopted by trustees and who is responsible for this irresponsible investment strategy ? If there is no contractual obligation then why our (retirees)demands were included under ‘”CHARTER OF DEMANDS” by UFBU AND OFFICERS CONFEDERATION?
 
AVERMENTS OF THE IBA
 
Refereeing to repeated comparison of pension scheme in banks to Government pension scheme, IBA stated that while the Government pays pension out of Budgetary allocation, bank pension is a funded scheme.  At the time of retirement of an employee, the bank is expected to ensure that adequate funding is made for payment of pension/ family pension with provision for periodic updation of dearness relief payable. As such there is no provision for updation of pension in Banks.  Financial implications will need to be fully examined before any change in benefits payable to pension 
 
My OBSERVATIONS
 
 
 
I am happy that IBA has admitted impliedly that there is a need for the Banks to make provision for various pension related issues whereas the Government doles out money for pension related issues out of Budgetary allocation.
 
·         Why there cannot be any comparison of pension scheme in Banks to Government pension scheme when the entire Pension Regulation introduced in PSBs is based on Government Pension Scheme.  In fact the residuary provisions of PSBs pension scheme states as under :
 
Residuary provisions - In case of doubt, in the matter of application of these Regulations, regard may be had to the corresponding provisions of Central Civil Service Rules,1972 or Central Civil Services (commutation of pension) Rules, 1981 applicable for Central Government employees with such exceptions and modifications as the Bank, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, may from time to time, determine.
 
 
1.            Now on the issue of “Financial implications” and “adequacy of Funds”: –  on this issue  we have to  refresh the memories of our bankers is that  even before the introduction of Pension scheme, IBA was singing the same song of “huge financial implications”, PSBs going to red etc., but see what has happened.  The Pension scheme has been introduced, trusts have been established and provisions for pension fund based on actuarial calculation are being made.
 
2.            Further, IBA has been raising this bogey time and again without putting on table what is the financial implications. It is rather unfortunate that the UFBU has also been buying this argument over the years.  On the other hand, the undersigned  have given the details of the Pension fund  position as on 31-3-2014 of public sector banks in my letter dated  24th Feb,2015 which is already in the Public domain. The IBA or the UFBU or any authority should contradict the same with cogent reasons and come out with their figures. Nothing of sorts is happening other than making statements in the air. 
 
3.            The IBA had ample time and resources at its command to gather this information for over more than 4/5 years yet they have chosen to make such statements. Infact, immediately after the demands relating to retirees were made, IBA should have got the data but they have chosen to keep quiet for more than 900 days  for obvious reasons.  
 
4.            Further, is it not true that PSBs have been lending to unscrupulous borrowers like Mr. Vijaya Malaya, Winsome Diamond and a host of others under political influence or pressure from the top management of the Bank? Is it not true that PSBs have taken over accounts from other smaller PSBs under instructions of CMDS  with increase ranging between 15 to 25 % knowing very well that these accounts are already showing signs of NPAs?  Is it not true that many of these accounts have been restructured within short span of time and are potential NPAs for which provisions have to be made if not today, tomorrow?   Are we not aware of the fact that some of the CMDs have worked only to manage the Balance Sheet  in order  to show to the Minstry of Finance of their performance and pocket the incentives in lakhs? Are we not   making provisions for willful defaulters in good measure?  The irony of the situation is that those who are looting the PSBs are enjoying the funds  whereas those who have toiled hard  giving their brain, brown and blood are being discarded with the statement that there is no “contractual relationship, inadequacy of funds etc.,  The worst part of this irony is that the leadership of UFBF is accepting these ludicrous averments of IBA without even a whisper.
 
5.            See the meek manner in which IBA succumbed to the oral diktats of former  Finance Minister  when the issue of payment of Pension to those who were elevated as EDs and CMDs.  The IBA floating all the rules issued instructions to PSBs to pay the Pension without raising any attended queries.
 
6.            Now understand why the UFBU leaders have meekly accepted these statements from IBA.  This is because, the Workmen Directors and Officer’s Directors on Boards of PSBs barring few have been a silent spectators to all the rot that is going on in PSBs. They have been enjoying the benefits of being a Directors and in some case these Directors have been pampered with  by these Chairman. Hence, the result is obvious.  You and I have to suffer for some one’s inefficiency – read enjoyment of benefits.  
 
My OBSERVATIONS ON THE ISSUES RAISED AND
 
THE REPLY OF IBA
On LFC and Hospitalisation
Hospitalisation scheme would be extended to retirees also but subject to the condition that cost of the insurance premium would be payable by retirees. 
In RBI Group Insurance policy grade wise is available with ceiling in limits; such a scheme is required without payment of insurance premium as available in RBI. On LFC parties cannot take arbitrary decision; Even in case of Government Employees, Medical facilities are available post retirement.  The need for Hospitalisation is more pronounced  since officers of the Bank work under stressful conditions taking huge risk which is reflected in the form of health issues post retirement. This fact is admitted by even the UFBU.
Family Pension
While the IBA is sympathetic to the issue, the cost involved is significant and unaffordable at the present juncture. IBA will examine cost implications and sustainability of each bank, at a future date. 
Here again, IBA has not come out with facts and figures.  Future date should be certain and it cannot be vague. Improvement in Family pension is implemented in RBI. Our scheme is on the lines of scheme available in RBI and Government. So this need not be discussed, as it is already settled issue and it should be implemented from the effective date as the date of implementation in RBI. 
100% D A Relief
Firstly the matter is sub-judice as certain cases on this issue are pending for a decision with SC. As such IBA cannot take a decision at this stage. From a humanitarian point of view, IBA may examine  feasibility of providing 100% dearness relief neutralisation to pre-November retirees based on a detailed costing exercise 
This issue is implemented in RBI. Our scheme is on the lines of scheme available in RBI, so this need not be discussed, as it is  SETTLED ISSUE and it should be implemented from the effective date from FEB 2005 as the date of implementation in RBI. They have to refer the clause   12 of the pension settlement dated 29.10.1993, which says that,  Provisions will be made by a scheme, to be negotiated and settled between the parties to this Settlement by 31st December, 1993 for applicability, qualifying service, amounts of pension, payment of pension, commutation of pension, family pension, updating and other general conditions, etc. on the lines as are in force in Reserve Bank of India. Another ridiculous stand how can they mention “subjudice” when in the past “Revision in pension” and “Five year notional service” and “2ND option for pension “were implemented when the relative matters were “SUBJUDICE”?
On upgrading the Basic pension at the common and uniform index of 4440 points
IBA would examine the cost implication and sustainability of member banks.
Section 10 (7) Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 says “After making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation in assets, contributions to staff and superannuation funds and all other matters for which provision is necessary under any law, or which are usually provided for by banking companies, a corresponding new bank [may out of its net profits deal are a dividend and retain the surplus if any.” That is to say, our issues of superannuation funds has prior charge over net profit. Provisions for advances, depreciation on assets and other provisions are made automatically without noise in the banking industry by banks and sustainability of individual banks is thought of at this juncture, when the question of retiral issues of superannuation funds comes IBA ad UFBU make big noise and talk without the base of legal plat form.   
Up gradation of pension for all existing and family pensioners
In view of Huge additional cost involved in funding the Pension Fund as per the requirements of AS-15-R, it would be impossible to consider this demand.
Section 10(7) Banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings ) act 1970 and settlement dated 19.10.1993 para 10, prevails over the  Accounting Standard – 15 [Revised 2005]. Hence there is no meaning in the stand of IBA and UFBU. What is the huge additional cost is not quantified, without such quantification; the argument/stand of the signatories will not survive the test of law. I also do not understand as to why they kept quite for more than 900 days during which period IBA could have easily collected this information from  banks
Periodical updation improvement in pension along with occasions of wage revision of in-service employees on the lines of central government.
This being a funded scheme in lieu of contributory PF, as it is banks are contributing several times to statutory PF contributions towards funding pension scheme every year. Hence providing for periodic updation is not possible as this will have serious impact on the working of the banks.
My observations as above on affordability etc remains the same  on this issues. Section 10(7) Banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings ) act 1970, says, after making provision for bad and doubtful debts, depreciation on  assets, staff cost and superannuation benefits, other provisions required under law, net profit can be used for payment of dividend to the owners.  The import of the above is that :
 
1.      Provision is to be made for bad and doubtful debts, whereas after the reforms and as per IRAC provision is to be made on sub standard assets also. Legally speaking, provision on sub standard is an additional stress on the profits. 
 2.      Further provision is made on standard assets also as per international standards and that is also additional stress on the profits.

3.
      Depreciation on assets is to be made,
 4.      other provisions as per law to be made,
 That is 1 to 4 above are automatic and compulsory and at the time of making automatic and compulsory provision on the above 1 to 4, nobody talks about sustainability of banks. Sometimes provisions have eroded the reserves and capital and central government has pumped in additional capital from the resources of tax payers.
 5.      When staff cost and superannuation cost, is to be made, this is the struggle the pensioner has to make, when his legal right is to be enforced.
 
Government guidelines permit banks to provide benefits to retirees out of Welfare Funds. This may be taken up at the bank level.
First of all banks have to entertain discussion with representatives of retirees and their representative should be on the board of welfare fund. In Bank of Baroda, Welfare fund is misused for payment of canteen subsidy to in service employees against the central government guidelines. The one of the signatories of this Record Note of Discussion is from Bank of Baroda, is well aware of this illegal payment.  But he maintains silence against his own conscience.
 
It is high time that pensioners are given representation in Pension Trust, Welfare committee and in the negotiating committee so as to ensure that the interest of pensioners are not short shrift. 
 
It may be further noted that inspite  of clear cut direction from your department to IBA to negotiate the retirees demands with the representative of the Apex  retirees organization IBA did not call the retirees organization representative  in blatant violation of your organization and released the record note of discussion on retirees issue on 25-5-2015. For the above disrespect to your direction stern action needs to be initiated against the Chairman , CEO and Personal Committee members of IBA
 
 In the light of what has been stated above I request you and the Hon’ble Finance Minister  to give direction to IBA AND CMDS OF PUBLIC SECTOR BANKS to resolve all the pensioners  issues which are included in the “charter of demands” as stated above immediately  and at the same time the resignees and the CRS be granted 2nd pension option to those who have completed 20 years of service in the bank
 
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely
 S.RAMACHANDRAN
PENSIONER SENIOR CITIZEN,
 AGE 77 YEARS, FORMER GM BANK OF BARODA,
And on behalf of thousands of affected retirees.
 
CC:
1. SHRI ARUN JAITLY,
HON’BLE FINANCE MINISTER,
MINISTRY OF FINANCE,GOVT OF INDIA,
NORTH BLOCK,RAISINA HILLS,
NEW DELHI 110001 FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS TO IBA
 
2.  SHRI NARENDRA MODI,HON,BLE PRIME MINISTER,
GOVT OF INDIA,ROOM NO 148B,SOUTH BLOCK,RAISINA HILLS,
NEW DELHI,110001,FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY INSTRUCTIONS TO IBA
 
3. THE CHAIRMAN,
INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION,WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
6TH FLOOR,CENTRAL BUILDING,WORLD TRADE CENTREB COMPLEX,
CUFFE PARADE,MUMBAI-400005
 
4. CMD,BANK OF BARODA,BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,
BARODA CORPORATE CENTRE,C-26,G BLOCK,BANDRA EAST,
MUMBAI  400051
 
5. DR RAGHURAM RAJAN,
GOVERNOR,RESERVE BANK OF INDIA ,16TH FLOOR,
CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING ,MINT ROAD,
FORT,MUMBAI -400001       
 FOR INFORMATION AND NECESSARY INTERVENTION PLEASE