C N VENUGOPALAN

Former Director (GOI Nominee) State Bank of Travancore & EX-Manager, Union Bank of India

1300 Keller Pkwy, Apt # 2015, Keller – 76248,  TEXAS - USA

Sharing some  banking thoughts with Retiree Friends   

STRANGE!  BANK MEN PAY A TOLL FOR THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION

Bank unions raise a toll from the members for surrendering their rights to the employer and function for the leaders.  They transformed the industry a slave dynasty.

The leaders enjoyed a piggy ride on the back of the members and lived on the subscriptions and levies.  They are loyal to the managements that collect the subscription through salary deduction.   Their locations and salary are safe on pawning the rights of the members.

Look at the present compensation in banks.  Had the leaders been ever alert and agile, any time, for conserving and protecting the rights of members?

Bank employees had better pay than government employees in the past.  It is the remote past, at the time of nationalisation.  Great !,  Unions signed ten Bipartite Settlements in the place of merely six Pay Commissions for government employees.  But bank salary dwindled with each bi-partite settlement.  It is now one half of that of government employees.   Now see the seventh Pay Commission. 

Government implements all its financial policies through banks. Government employees are only drones who watch the game.  Bankers are workers who worked to illuminate the nation but are in darkness now.  They work in hectic mode for six days and the government employee, in leisurely mode for five days a week. The former pays his salary out of the sweat of their own brows though they are also quasi government employees through government ownership of banks and are entitled to be paid by the government.  But the latter alone is paid by the government out of exchequer through budgetary allocations.  Why the discrimination to the bankers alone in compensation?  

Agreements are signed with IBA on wages and pension.  Why are leaders mute on derogation of agreements and statutes by IBA and banks? Do they not have  sense and wisdom?  

Pension was initially denied to employees through clause 22 (4) (b) of Pension Regulations.  When government directed IBA to advise all banks to scrap the clause and give effect to the amendment, leaders did not claim fresh option for pension.  Did they not come across the direction of the government vide F No.4/8/4/95-IR dated 24.12.1997 giving such a direction which reached IBA on 27.12.1997?  Were the unions not hoodwinking the members for IBA?   Can anyone clarify on this?

While option was later given through Joint Note dated 27.04.2010, why did the unions consent  for a contribution by members at 2.8 times pay for November, 2007 and  at 56 percent of CPF from retired  employees to be paid when regulations 5(3) and 11 Pension Regulations fix the banks as sole contributor to the Pension Fund?  Why did they consent for payment of pension to the retired from 27.11.2009 only when regulation 52 (1) stipulated that pension shall commence from the day following the retirement date?   Was any cock-tail influence in the arbitrary, irrational and unlawful terms of IBA which are inconsistent with the statutory Pension Regulations and hence not notified in gazette so far?

When conclusion 10 in the Joint Note specifically stipulated compliance with the due procedure under section 19 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 which had to be done as soon as the Joint Note was signed (u. s. 19(4) of the Act) and the compliance is remaining undone in spite of the lapse of six years now, did the unions not notice the breach of the agreement, thus obliterating the Joint Note as a whole?   Why are leaders mute on the breach without challenging it?

Why are the so called leaders not challenging the breach of the vital clause of the Joint Note and the unlawful action of public sector banks in raising an unlawful contribution from their own members and the retired denying pension from the date of retirement to the date 27.11.2009 to the retired?

When Pension Scheme was agreed to be on the pattern of Central Civil Pension and regulation 56 of Pension Regulations enabled any deviation from it only with the sanction of the government,  why bank pension is not revised with Bi-Partite Settlements unlike in the case of government pension which is automatically revised with the implementation of each Pay Commission?  Has any bank obtained sanction of the government to deny revision in pension in the way prescribed in regulation 56?

While the leaders signed the Record Note on 25.04.2015, were they not subscribing to the view of IBA that contractual relationship does not exist between banks and retirees and that there is no provision for updation of pension in banks.  Were bank unions unaware of the statutory relationship of the retired, arising out of the Pension Regulations, a subordinate legislation put in place by the Indian Parliament and of regulation 56 providing for periodical updation of pension for the reason that bank pension  was agreed to be on all fours with Central Civil Pension permitting exceptions with the specific sanction of the government alone?  

When section 10 (7) of the Act assigns a prior charge to superannuation funds over the profits of banks over payment of dividend and regulations 5 (3) and 11 of the Pension Regulations make it clear that the banks shall make requisite contributions to Pension Funds, how the leaders agreed to the contribution by employees and retired employees to the Pension Funds of banks in derogation of laws? Were they not pawning the statutory rights of the members and former members?   How did they consent in the Record Note that  Financial implications will need to be fully examined before any change in benefits payable to pensioners can be considered in the same breath in derogation of the Act and Pension Regulations after telling that they have no mandate for discussing retiree issues?  

Are the leaders unaware that the Pension Funds of banks are abounding in resources and that the amount of pension now being paid is a meager 20 to 25 percent of the annual accretion in Pension Funds  and that, after extension of fresh option, and all banks have the capacity to pay two to four times the present pension to all their pensioners? 

Are the leaders unaware that the Pension Funds are built up of contributions that was previously payable by banks pursuant to EPF Act, 1952 and that the money in the Pension Funds is the money of the employees and not the money of the banks?

Are the leaders not aware that the unlawful contribution raised by banks and held in  Pension Funds as also the detained pension from the date of retirement to 27.11.2009 in it were earning an income in the Pension Funds with compound interest to the Pension Funds and that neither the banks nor the government has zero cost in releasing it to the retirees with similar compound interest and profits of the banks will not be affected in doing so?

Are the leaders not aware that holding the moneys looted from the retired employees and held in the Pension Funds  will not have any purpose unless due benefits are paid as pension liability is reducing through the mortality of pensioners and employees who are recruited after 31.03.2010 who are covered by PFRDA Scheme need not be serviced out of Pension Funds of banks?  

While the Joint Note is de jure void and can be treated as valid only for the purpose of extending an option which was to be given in terms of government communication F No.4/8/4/95-IR dated 24.12.1997, and more so since no amendments to a regulation which prejudice the validity of what is done earlier under a regulation can be made in terms of section 19 (1) and 19 (4) of the Act, and there was breach of the terms of the Joint Note through non-compliance of conclusion 10 in it, what prohibits the leaders from challenging the Joint Note before the Labour Commissioner and securing justice to their members and former members  instead of driving them to the various High Courts at their expense and trouble in the evening of their lives?

We see the leaders agitating against national policies of the government such as merger of banks,  capital infusion, punitive actions against miscreants etc. at the cost of and side tracking cardinal rights and issues of the members and former members  who made them what they are. Do they lack prick of conscience, or are such steps deliberate attempts to patch holes with darkness?  

Are all the above not eye openers to the current members of the unions? Are they sure that similar treatment will not be meted out to them later after paying tolls regularly  to unions during the entire tenure of membership?  Why should they pay a toll for their own destruction?

IF THERE IS ANY ORGANISATION OF BANKERS, WORTH ITS NAME AND IS LOYAL TO THE MEMBERS AND PAST MEMBERS, WHY CAN’T IT CHALLENGE THE JOINT NOTE, WHICH IS VOID FOR NN-COMPLIANCE WITH ITS OWN CONCLUSION 10 AND DEMAND COMPLIANCE WITH THE PENSION REGULATIONS IN FORCE ?   SO LONG AS THEY DONOT DO THIS, THEY HAVE NO MORAL RIGHT TO COLLECT THE SUBSCRIPTION TOLLS.   THE RIGHT PLACE FOR RETIRED BANKERS TO STAGE DHARNA FOR REDEEMING THEIR RIGHTS IS NOT JANTAR MANDAR BUT THE OFFICES OF THE TRADE UNIONS.  IT WILL BE INNOVATIVE AND INEVITABLE.  

I do have a right to think on such lines since a sum of Rs.35.00 lakhs plus due to me as pension is detained in the Pension Fund of Union Bank of India when the accretion in its Pension Fund during the period from  2010 to 2015 has a surplus to pay Rs.2.02 Crores,  per capita as arrears of pension / deferred pension, to all its 3,106 retired employees, encompassed in Pension Scheme through the  Joint Note, without having a pinch on the bank’s profits and I lost my deferred wages on account of the wrong commissions of the organizations. The position in other banks and of other retired employees is also not different.

The above ill-treatment was meted out by the great institution when it owes its very existence in the banking scenario in its name now to me and in spite of having my done very unique contribution to the banking industry as a whole, and I am unaware whether what is narrated in the link infra constitute mischief or good done by me:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_UI4pgwLPCjaldGSGtEV2RaLTg/view?usp=sharing

       All the above shall be an eye opener to the employees on rolls also as the same fate of the retirees can befall on them too.  Is not regular collection of subscriptions and levies by unions, assuring to protect the rights of members and pawning their rights through each settlement /joint note / record note,  a continuous breach of trust and a crime?

The details of Pension Funds of some of the banks which are readily available are given in the link https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_UI4pgwLPCjT3hqMGo1c2FoaE0/view?usp=sharing , for the information of anyone who has an academic interest in  it.  The data pertaining to some other banks are lying with me in India in the form of RTI letters to which I have no ready access since I am abroad.  They show that all banks have Pension Funds enough to pay two to four times the present pension to all their pensioners.

Let any one, not necessarily a leader, clarify things. 

-  C N VENUGOPALAN

सत्यमेव जयते

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_UI4pgwLPCjWklKcmdyN3NMUmM/view?usp=sharing