Indian Banks Association

IBA has apparently committed Fraud on Pension Optees as also PF optee in banks in the recently concluded wage settlement agreement with bank employees.
• When pension was offered in lieu of provident fund. IBA/ Banks can not recover any cost/ incremental cost from pension optees. It is totally illegal and can not stand for judicial scrutiny in the court of law.
• The pension scheme of 1995 was not contributory in nature; any recovery toward the cost is illegal.
• The unions have wrongly agreed to IBA proposal for sharing the cost in all the above 3 settlements.

• If Bank employee’s pension was contributory in nature; there was no need to implement NPS i.e. 01.04.2010 in the banks.

• Central Govt. employees/ Railway/ State Govt. Employees or Judges of high Court/ Supreme Court do not pay any thing toward the cost of pension. Our pension regulations are based on there pension regulations only.

• During 7, 8 & 9th BPS (Bipartite settlement between IBA and bank employees unions) the above referred incremental cost of the pension has been recovered from both PF & Pension Optees. The IBA has reduced your wages to the extent of incremental cost while revising the wage. Hence both PF & Pension optees have been cheated and received lower wages.
• Can IBA/ Bank’s recover the incremental cost from a PF optee who is not the beneficiary of the Pension Fund Trust?
• Can IBA/ Bank transfer the share of incremental cost of pension of PF optees to pension fund instead of transferring to his PF Fund?
• The incremental cost of the pension, recovered from the PF optees should have been paid to PF optees in their PF or paid additionally along with the salaries.
• Is it not a fraud within the meaning of India Penal Code? Read the definition of Fraud in IPC?

Please note that above fraud has been perpetuated by the IBA in connivance with UFBU & Statutory Central Auditors who signed the balance sheet of the bank, since 7th BPS i.e. 01.11.1997.

Why the recovery of Rs 1800 crores from PF Optees is illegal in nature
• The actuarial liability of Rs 6000 crores for existing employees and Rs 3115 crores for retired employees are estimates only and not the actual number.
• Bank can not make actual recoveries on the basis of estimated actuarial liabilities. It is illegal.
• The Bank should first arrive at the actual numbers and actual figures of the pension gaps and then recover the actual recoverable dues.
• Then the bank should offer the pension option on the basis of actual recoverable dues.
• Hence any recovery from wage arrears is illegal liable to be rejected in judicial scrutiny.

Why such whimsical and unjustified act by IBA is possible?

I simply ask the wise and cleaver IBA chairman Mr. M V Nair and veteran Union leaders whether any bank can discriminate two officers ( in same scale with same status and same work responsibilities and same age of service ) only on the ground that one opted for pension in 1995 and another in 2010. It is worthwhile to mention here that both officers will get same pension if they leave the job.
Officers who are going to opt for pension as per new settlement have to pay as much as there times of one month pay i.e. as much as one lac rupees to become eligible for same pension which none of officers contributed in the past .

Such discriminatory attitude of IBA chairman just to please negotiating union leaders who have a vested interest to give benefits to those who have left service during last 15 years can in no way stand as legally valid agreement. It means retired employees or those who left banks service due to some reason or the other will get more benefits than working employees.

Is it possible to give different fitment to two officers drawing same basic of Rs.23520/ only because one is scale III and another is scale IV.

Is it justified to stop increment of senior officers only because there is no vacancy in upper scale? Stagnation Increment is given to senior officers after three years. It is directly disrespect to seniors for no reason.

Can you imagine the gainer on account of 9th bipartite settlement?

It is clerks whose union leaders are militant and devoted for their members.
It is SBI employees who are already getting pension as third terminal benefits without any extra contribution
It is executives and union leaders (who already left banks service) because they are part f negotiating committee for bipartite settlement.

Can you say, who are the real losers?
Yes they are officer in Junior and Middle Management. Officers who will opt for pension now. Because they have to contribute almost a lac rupee out of arrear towards pension fund, benefits of which will be shared by all pension optees equally. They have been punished only because they did not opt for pension in 1995.

I am unable to understand how and why union leaders feel pride in claiming achievement of second option for pension.

All these and many other illegal things are likely to happen in the recently concluded wage agreement for bankers.
Because Bank Management knows very well that individuals cannot go to court and even if anyone dare goes he cannot get justice in decades together.

Inefficacy, ineffectiveness and inefficiency of Indian Judiciary have become a matter of concern for common men.

Powerful person are exploiting their power to the maximum extent it is possible. They are even selling promotions and postings through their GMs and DGMs.

If money is lost nothing is lost, if health is lost some thing is lost but if character is lost everything is lost.

If top management indulge in unhealthy practices only because there is no option for victim to get the justice, none can stop erosion in intrinsic value of the bank and we have no doubt that such cleverness will spoil the bank’s health. People of India do not believe in what is achieved through Balance sheets only because the same is certified by Chartered Accountants. Indians have seen the balance sheets of Satyam computers and many more such companies. Similarly, officers in general understand that the the Bipartite settlement concluded for bank employees on 27th April 2010 is fully discriminatory, improper, biased and illegal.

Since the judicial system in our country is weak, officers have to digest the injustice and bear with it till they are associated with bank.