WHY THE RETIREES ARE MADE TO AGITATE ?
Bank Employees wages are fixed by negotiation between the UNITED FORUM OF BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [UFBU] AND INDIAN BANK ASS...OCIATION [IBA] AND RECENTLY 10TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED ON 25/05/2015 and Bank Employees are getting 15% rise in their salary. The wage revision is effective from 01/11/2012.
Bank Employees wages are fixed by negotiation between the UNITED FORUM OF BANK EMPLOYEES UNION [UFBU] AND INDIAN BANK ASS...OCIATION [IBA] AND RECENTLY 10TH BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED ON 25/05/2015 and Bank Employees are getting 15% rise in their salary. The wage revision is effective from 01/11/2012.
For Central Government Employees salary revision takes place through Pay Commission & Pay Commission also hears the Retirees Representatives & pension benefits are revised upward along with revision of service employees.
The unique feature of settlement In Banking Industry is, issues of the retirees too are discussed with UFBU only & IBA signs the settlement with UFBU for demands of retirees too and that too without hearing retiree organizations and makes it binding on them though Retirees] they are not signatory to settlement & even though settlement is detrimental to the interest of the Retirees.
Click Here To Read More On Pain and Problems OF Pensioners
Pension in Banking
In Banking Industry, Pension scheme was introduced by settlement signed on 29/10/1993 and with few modifications, Bank Employees pension regulation 1995 was notified on 29/09/1995. This regulation is based on pension scheme of GOI /RBI.
The BEPR 1995 was made effective from 01/01/1986 and pension for those retired employees (between 01/01/1986 to 29/10/1993) was revised / updated as per appendix to Regulation 35.
In subsequent settlement in 1997, 2002, 2007 and last one in 2012 IBA DISNOT IMPLEMENT THE PROVISION OF REGULATION 35 OF BEPR 1995 & as a result since last 20 years there is no revision in pension in Banking Industry.
ISSUES / DEMANDS OF RETIREES
1) Updation of pension for all existing retirees and family pensioners.
2) Upgrading the basic pension of all the pensioners at common & uniform index of 4440 points.
3) Periodical updation in pension alongwith every wage revision.
4) Revision in family pension on the lines of GOI / RBI Scheme.
5) Extending 100% DA Relief to all pre November 2002 pensioner.
6) Hospitalization scheme for Retired bank employees.
7) Extending 2nd Pension option to Resignees / CRS employees completing qualifying service.
All the above issues / demands of the retirees were submitted to IBA in the charter of Demand by UFBU in October 2012 i.e. well before the commencement of negotiation.
Accepting the demands of Retirees will not have burden on Banking Industry as Pension Fund is adequate to care of.
On 27/04/2010, 9th bipartite settlement was signed and another pension option to retirees too was extended considering the continued relationship of the retirees with Bank.
On 25/05/2015, IBA signed settlement with UFBU for wage revision for in service employees and also a Record Note [unconstitutional one] on the demand of retirees DENYING TO CONCEDE ANY DEMAND of Retirees stating that“ Contractual Relationship does not exist between Bank and retirees”
The meeting is organized 13/06/2015 , Saturday at Kelkar Hall ( IMA HALL) tilak Road Pune, to discuss / understand the action plan of retiree’s organization to achieve their demands in view of the Record Note signed between IBA & UFBU on 25/05/2015.
10-June-2015 17:43 IST
The unique feature of settlement In Banking Industry is, issues of the retirees too are discussed with UFBU only & IBA signs the settlement with UFBU for demands of retirees too and that too without hearing retiree organizations and makes it binding on them though Retirees] they are not signatory to settlement & even though settlement is detrimental to the interest of the Retirees.
Click Here To Read More On Pain and Problems OF Pensioners
Pension in Banking
In Banking Industry, Pension scheme was introduced by settlement signed on 29/10/1993 and with few modifications, Bank Employees pension regulation 1995 was notified on 29/09/1995. This regulation is based on pension scheme of GOI /RBI.
The BEPR 1995 was made effective from 01/01/1986 and pension for those retired employees (between 01/01/1986 to 29/10/1993) was revised / updated as per appendix to Regulation 35.
In subsequent settlement in 1997, 2002, 2007 and last one in 2012 IBA DISNOT IMPLEMENT THE PROVISION OF REGULATION 35 OF BEPR 1995 & as a result since last 20 years there is no revision in pension in Banking Industry.
ISSUES / DEMANDS OF RETIREES
1) Updation of pension for all existing retirees and family pensioners.
2) Upgrading the basic pension of all the pensioners at common & uniform index of 4440 points.
3) Periodical updation in pension alongwith every wage revision.
4) Revision in family pension on the lines of GOI / RBI Scheme.
5) Extending 100% DA Relief to all pre November 2002 pensioner.
6) Hospitalization scheme for Retired bank employees.
7) Extending 2nd Pension option to Resignees / CRS employees completing qualifying service.
All the above issues / demands of the retirees were submitted to IBA in the charter of Demand by UFBU in October 2012 i.e. well before the commencement of negotiation.
Accepting the demands of Retirees will not have burden on Banking Industry as Pension Fund is adequate to care of.
On 27/04/2010, 9th bipartite settlement was signed and another pension option to retirees too was extended considering the continued relationship of the retirees with Bank.
On 25/05/2015, IBA signed settlement with UFBU for wage revision for in service employees and also a Record Note [unconstitutional one] on the demand of retirees DENYING TO CONCEDE ANY DEMAND of Retirees stating that“ Contractual Relationship does not exist between Bank and retirees”
The meeting is organized 13/06/2015 , Saturday at Kelkar Hall ( IMA HALL) tilak Road Pune, to discuss / understand the action plan of retiree’s organization to achieve their demands in view of the Record Note signed between IBA & UFBU on 25/05/2015.
10-June-2015 17:43 IST
Proposal to promulgate the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015
The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, has given its approval for the proposal to promulgate the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
The proposed amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“The NI Act”) are focused on clarifying the jurisdiction related issues for filing cases for offence committed under section 138 of the NI Act.
The clarification of jurisdictional issues may be desirable from the equity point of view as this would be in the interests of the complainant and would also ensure a fair trial.
The clarity on jurisdictional issue for trying the cases of cheque bouncing would increase the credibility of the cheque as a financial instrument. This would help the trade and commerce in general and allow the lending institution, including banks, to continue to extend financing to the economy, without the apprehension of the loan default on account of bouncing of a cheque.
Background
The Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the offence pertaining to dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the drawer’s account on which the cheque is drawn for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability. The section 138 of the NI Act provides for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. The object of the NI Act is to encourage the usage of cheque and enhancing the credibility of the instrument so that the normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured.
Various financial institutions and industry associations have expressed difficulties, arising out of the recent legal interpretation of the place of jurisdiction for filing cases under Section 138 to be the place of drawers’ bank by the Supreme Court. To address the difficulties faced by the payee or the lender of the money in filing the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, because of which, large number of cases were stuck, the jurisdiction for offence under Section 138 has been proposed to be clearly defined. Accordingly, the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 (“the Bill”) in Parliament was introduced in Lok Sabha on 6th May, 2015 and considered and passed by Lok Sabha on 13th May, 2015. However, since the Rajya Sabha was adjourned sine die on 13th May, 2015, the Bill could not be discussed and passed by that House and the Bill could not be enacted.
The Bill provides for filing of cases only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee delivers the cheque for payment is situated. Further, where a complaint has been filed against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under the new scheme of jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court, irrespective of whether those cheques were presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
Further, it has been provided that if more than one prosecution is filed against the same drawer of cheques before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, the court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction as per the new scheme of jurisdiction.
In view of the urgency to create a suitable legal framework for determination of the place of jurisdiction for trying cases of dishonour of cheques under section 138 of the NI Act, the Government has decided to amend the law through the Negotiable instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
The objective is to ensure that a fair trial is conducted keeping in view the interests of the complainant by clarifying the territorial jurisdiction for trying the cases for dishonour of cheques. The Ordinance is similar to the Bill in the sense that the substantive principle for determination of the jurisdiction of the cases under section 138 of the NI Act remains the same, except that that two distinct situations of payment of cheque (i) by submitting the same for collection through an account or (ii) payment of a cheque otherwise through an account, that is, when cheques are presented across the counter of any branch of drawee bank for payment, are covered under the Ordinance.
The proposed amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“The NI Act”) are focused on clarifying the jurisdiction related issues for filing cases for offence committed under section 138 of the NI Act.
The clarification of jurisdictional issues may be desirable from the equity point of view as this would be in the interests of the complainant and would also ensure a fair trial.
The clarity on jurisdictional issue for trying the cases of cheque bouncing would increase the credibility of the cheque as a financial instrument. This would help the trade and commerce in general and allow the lending institution, including banks, to continue to extend financing to the economy, without the apprehension of the loan default on account of bouncing of a cheque.
Background
The Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the offence pertaining to dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the drawer’s account on which the cheque is drawn for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability. The section 138 of the NI Act provides for penalties in case of dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque. The object of the NI Act is to encourage the usage of cheque and enhancing the credibility of the instrument so that the normal business transactions and settlement of liabilities could be ensured.
Various financial institutions and industry associations have expressed difficulties, arising out of the recent legal interpretation of the place of jurisdiction for filing cases under Section 138 to be the place of drawers’ bank by the Supreme Court. To address the difficulties faced by the payee or the lender of the money in filing the cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, because of which, large number of cases were stuck, the jurisdiction for offence under Section 138 has been proposed to be clearly defined. Accordingly, the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 (“the Bill”) in Parliament was introduced in Lok Sabha on 6th May, 2015 and considered and passed by Lok Sabha on 13th May, 2015. However, since the Rajya Sabha was adjourned sine die on 13th May, 2015, the Bill could not be discussed and passed by that House and the Bill could not be enacted.
The Bill provides for filing of cases only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee delivers the cheque for payment is situated. Further, where a complaint has been filed against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under the new scheme of jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court, irrespective of whether those cheques were presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court.
Further, it has been provided that if more than one prosecution is filed against the same drawer of cheques before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, the court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction as per the new scheme of jurisdiction.
In view of the urgency to create a suitable legal framework for determination of the place of jurisdiction for trying cases of dishonour of cheques under section 138 of the NI Act, the Government has decided to amend the law through the Negotiable instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
The objective is to ensure that a fair trial is conducted keeping in view the interests of the complainant by clarifying the territorial jurisdiction for trying the cases for dishonour of cheques. The Ordinance is similar to the Bill in the sense that the substantive principle for determination of the jurisdiction of the cases under section 138 of the NI Act remains the same, except that that two distinct situations of payment of cheque (i) by submitting the same for collection through an account or (ii) payment of a cheque otherwise through an account, that is, when cheques are presented across the counter of any branch of drawee bank for payment, are covered under the Ordinance.
We have seen earlier also that bakers have strikes many times to fulfill their diamonds but never succeeded. Read more braking news on banking and business visit at Business news in Hindi
ReplyDeleteTremendous increase of N.P.A is one of the major detiriorating factor to our banking industry.The following steps if raised honestly and appropriately
ReplyDeleteit may be surmounted. These are as follows:-
1, There is an urgent need to introduce an independent bank which should execute policy to recover and administer such N.P.A.s' at appex level
Major judicial power must be entrusted to its fast treck of judicial and legal department.This bank should be an associate of Reserve Bank Of India as like NABARD.
A judicial probe or an investigation by CBI and CVC is urgently needed to clear the doubts and suspicions of lakhs of subscribing members. The phones' data, from presentation of charter of demands to 25.05.2015, every stage, every move must be probed and investigated. SIT must step in.
ReplyDeleteNot only the retired ones, but also, those who are in service have been severely effected. Pay Commission and CAT are must for all of us.