BANK WAGE REVISION GONE TO COURT

11th Bipartite Settlement MoU dated 22nd July 2020 ::
This MoU is now challenged in Chennai High Court and Karnataka High Court. Some more cases may come up in other High Court also. A few interesting legal points from the court cases are ::
One of the Constituent of UFBU namely BEFI did not sign the MoU and is vehemently opposing MoU in public forum. Three other Unions (INBEF, NOBW, AIBOA) who have signed MoU also come out strongly against it and stated that they were forced to sign.
Thus, when there is no consensus and UFBU itself is disintegrated by the exit of BEFI it is incumbent on IBA to refer the dispute to the Central Labour Commissioner for adjudication but instead signed MoU.
IBA declares through their Circular that its functioning and authority is not amenable to judicial review and not subjected to the rule of law. Though IBA signed 10 Bipartite Settlements in the past representing Bank managements, now IBA claims that being an unregistered body it is not accountable to the judicial proceedings.
Thus the unregistered body of IBA has no legal right or status to represent or to sign any MoU or settlement with registered Trade Unions. The unregistered body of IBA has no legal status to represent for anyone including IBA and the IBA representing for the Bank managements is the foundational illegality.
The rule of law necessitates that to validate any MoU all the individual member Banks have to sign MoU as parties with the registered Trade Unions arrayed on the other side.
Therefore, the invalid MoU ought not to be arbitrarily thrust on the Bank employees Officers Pensioners family pensioners etc. much to their disadvantage.
Source :: Chennai High Court case report.

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS TAKES UP THE ISSUE OF FULL PENSION FOR 20 YEARS OF SERVICE WITH LIC MANAGEMENT

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS

This is the Second letter to Sri Guptaji, the MD, but this time, on the Rule of minimum qualifying service, for Full Pension eligibility. As you might know, it is still,  a minimum of 33 years of Service, for eligibility for full Pension in LIC, whereas it is 20 years in Central Govt., RBI and other Organizations.  As a result of this old Rule holding good even now in LIC, there are many employees, and more particularly the Ex-service men who joined the LIC at later age, with less scope for full term of 33 years of Service being put in, for full Pension eligibility. And these therefore draw Pensions at less than the full levels, and only on pro-rata basis. Our plea is not something of a new principle being expounded by us, first time, but to make the change over to the 20 year minimum Service for full Pension, on par with the Govt. and other institutions which have switched over to this liberalized Rule. The letter is appended below.

FEDERATION OF RETIRED LIC CLASS I 
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATIONS

Dear Sri Guptaji,

I am sorry if you feel, I am inundating you with letters. I really can't help it, because it involves important matters of Pensioners. One major issue, about which I have even written to the Chairman, is that we in the LIC leadership do not think, it is basically our responsibility to apply mind on improvements in matters of Pensioners, especially where such changes have already been made, in similar establishments. 

Yes, in two aspects, LIC did take initiative – Family Pension increase and Periodic raise for the 80 plus, where Results are yet to come in. But other than these two matters, you have not thought it fit to take up other important areas for improvement. And every time we bring up some matter before you, it is always, after it has  been made applicable to employees of other similar institutions like Central Govt. or RBI or Banks.

I am now bringing up the matter regarding eligibility for Full Pension, on the basis of 20 years of Service put in by the employee. As of now we have the 33 year Rule for full pension eligibility. This Rule has been changed for others quite some time ago (in 2007 for BSNL and 2013 for RBI). I am attaching copies of instructions, on this behalf, in BSNL and the RBI. We would request that in LIC too this change is brought about by taking up with the Central Govt.

Kindly do not set it aside, thinking that such requests from the Federation are routine stuff. Unless LIC Management recommends the change, whose principle need not now be newly expounded to the Govt., how will it ever happen? It is our belief, that if you recommend it, quoting the adoption of this rule in other Govt. Organizations, the change over to the 20 year eligibility Rule for Full Pension, should follow without fundamental questions being raised. I would most earnestly request that this be done without further ado.

Thanking you and with Regards

D. Krishnan

Development staff of General insurance companies who have opted for Pension but denied Pension on SVRS for not completing 20 years of service on the date of SVRS.

The affected retired Dev staffs are requested to file the case by challenging relevant Para 11 B (ii)  of  Instructions issued dated 6^th Feb 2003 Subsequent to Dev Staff SVRS scheme Dated 2^nd Jan 2003  instead of filing Petition relying on the case already decided by the court in favor of Admin Staff.

The SVRS scheme of both is different & the former is not a substitute for the later. The Admin cases can be mentioned as a second line of defense, otherwise it will have the same fate of ill-fated case of Arun Oswal Vs Oriental Insurance Company in DHC WP(C) 6408/2014, Please note that the famous judgment in National Insurance Company Vs  Kirpal Singh in SC CA 256/2014 is  an admin staff case, ofcousrse it can be quoted as a second line of defence but emphasis should be on challenging Para 11B (II)  of instructions issued dated 6 Feb 2003 Subsequent to development SVRS scheme dated 2nd  Jan 2003.

 This has clearly mentioned by by Supreme court while dismissing Arun Oswal case who was a Dev Staff. The Court has indirectly indicated that if Para 11B (II) of the instructions dated 6^th Feb 2003 Subsequent to Dev SVRS Scheme dated 2^nd Jan 2003  had been challenged instead of challenging on the basis of a case won by others having different scheme. Hence  Please bring this matter o the notice your advocate to avoid a similar fate as that of Arun Oswal case.

The Relevant Portion of Judgement in the Arun Oswal Vs Oriental Isurance Co Ltd.in DHC WP(C) 6408/2014 is given below.

“It has not been pointed out that such instructions were issued pursuant to SVRS 2004, which was considered by Supreme Court in National Insurance Co Ltd Vs Kirpal Singh. The instructions being the distinguishing feature, the judgment of the Supreme Court being peculiar to SVRS 2004 can not be construed as a judgment in rem. The petitioner having not challenged the communication dated oct 29^th 2003 and has acquiesced in to the said order, that apart, the legality of Para 11 B (ii) of the instructions dated 6^th Feb 2003, has not been challenged, the petitioner not entitled to any relief. The Petition is dismissed.”

FOLLOWING CCS PENSION RULES BSNL DONE AWAY WITH PRO RATA CALCULATION OF PENSION FOR ALL THEIR RETIRED STAFF

FOLLOWING CCS PENSION RULES MINISTRY OF SHIPPIMG DONE AWAY WITH PRO RATA CALCULATION OF PENSION IN ALL PRORTS UNDER THEM