Sunday, January 15, 2012

CBOO VARTHA 7

CBOO VAARTHA

(CANARA BANK OFFICERS’ ORGANISATION (REGD)

(Affiliated to NOBO & BMS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE MAGAZINE FOR INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY – QUARTERLY PUBLICATION – JAN 2012

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM THE GS DESK

WISH YOU A HAPPY & PROSPEROUS 2012

As we have stepped into the CALENDER YEAR 2012, we greet all Canbank men & women a HAPPY, PROSPEROUS AND BLISSFUL year and Makara Sankranthi. As we believe in broad minded philosophy “VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAKAM” propagated by our ancestors, we wish the Celestial transition usher in New hope for better living for one and all across the Globe.

The year which just slipped into history saw the disturbances in socio, economic and political arena in many parts of the world, yet the indomitable spirit of common man has sustained the ill effects. The impact of global recession which engulfed the United States and Europe has left its impact on the world economy. Again and again it is proved that the Economics preached and practiced by Western Pundits is an utter failure. No wonder if the entire western world one day looks for Indian model for guidance. But on the other hand, our Union govt appears to toeing the line of western model disregarding the socio economic conditions of our Nation as well our cultural background & heritage.

The year 2011 has been a year of stinking scams / corruption and degeneration of the moral, ethical fiber of this country. Men in different spectrums of professions, viz. politicians, bureaucrats, sports, media persons have all shown their exemplary skills and ability to swindle public money into their coffers, leaving most ugly face of civic society. Tihar jail has become an asylum of corrupt VIPs. People like Anna Hazare & Baba Ramdev have tried their hands in cleansing the dirt. Though the result has not been encouraging, they have been successful in creating an awareness amongst the people through out the length & breadth of the country. The Union government has adopted anti-Gandhian methods to crush the Gandhian movements of these protesters and has managed to outmaneuver them. Sri Subramanyam swamy is a lone crusader who has taken up cudgels against the corrupt politicians through his battle in the courts of law. We wish him success in his endeavour.

In the banking sector, the measures initiated by the regulatory authority ( RBI) to contain inflation, have not yielded the desired results. RBI governor has been given extension of term also, apparently for expeditious Banking sector reforms. For the time being, even though the govt has backed out from pushing the bill for FDI in retail business in parliament, they are very eager to bring Banking sector reforms bill before parliament, which includes increased FDI in banking sector & implementation of Khandelwal committee recommendations. The UFBU has already lodged its protest with the govt as well as IBA. A day’s total bank strike on 28th Feb 2012 is also called for in this connection.

As far as our bank is concerned opening of new branches continues unabated especially under the scheme of Financial Inclusion with out proper arrangements for staff deployment. Adequate staff recruitment not at all in sight, we do not know the strategies of the Bank in manning these new branches and also handling the mass retirements (normal and VRS) happening in full stream now. Our top management needs to draw a well defined personnel policy to strengthen branches with adequate staff and State of the Art Technology to drive the activities of branches.

The promotions in various levels have been completed and people are in the process of movement. Yet it may not be out of context to highlight that existing man power in branches is far from satisfactory. We have been repeatedly telling that the technology is not fully supportive and shortage of manpower has been a cause of concern in as much as people running the branch and offices are going through mental fatigue to cope up with growing business and customer expectations.

As afar as our organisation is concerned, we have been by and large, comfortable in protecting the interests of members on the issues of transfers and Disciplinary matters. The Disciplinary authorities at Circle levels are desired to be more pragmatic and practical in imposing punishments to avoid appeals to the higher authorities in each and every case for seeking justice. It is desired that, wherever staff involvement is not there, the matter should be viewed as Non-vigilance matter.

There are other issues like non-revision of rental ceiling by the Bank for long, inspite of the spiraling inflation. The Petrol limit is also not increased inspite of expanding cities & towns forcing the officers community to commute longer distances everyday. The cleaning allowance sanctioned by the Bank to the officers community living in Bank’s quarters only, is also an issue of denial of equal treatment to all the officers. The core banking activities (accepting Deposits & Lending) appear to have taken a back seat in the face of the thrust and enormous pressure on the branch heads regarding insurance & investment targets. All these constraints apart, let us pledge to continue our Karma Yoga and set new standards for growth of our Bank and Organisation in 20012.With Warm greetings,

- B.K.Irwathraya

NOBO & BMS VAARTHA

ALL INDIA BANK STRIKE ON 28TH FEB 2012

In persuasion of the following issues taken up during the National convention held last year, the United Forum of Bank Unions has called for an agitational programme culminating in a day’s All India Bank Strike on 28th Feb 2012:

- To Fight back increasing attacks on banking sector and bank employees/officers

- To Resist retrograde banking reforms

- To Repulse attacks on jobs and job security

- To Oppose Khandelwal committee recommendations

- To Demand resolution of pending issues.

We are furnishing herebelow the gist of circular dated 19/12/2011 issued by UFBU in this regard. We call upon all our members to participate in the strike and make it a success.

GIST OF UFBU CIRCULAR DATED 19/12/2011

National Seminar on 13-12-2011: UFBU organized a National Seminar on 13-12-2011 in Delhi to give focus to our issues and solicit support to our demands. The seminar was presided over by the leaders of UFBU and addressed by the following leaders, who extended their full support to our demands:

a) Shri Prakash Javdekar, MP and Spokesperson, BJP

b) Shri Tapan Sen, MP (CPI-M) and General Secretary, CITU

c) Shri D. Raja, MP and National Secretary, CPI

UFBU meeting on 13-12-2011: UFBU meeting took place on 13-12-2011 in the State Bank Staff Union premises at Delhi, duly participated by the representatives of all the constituuens. The meeting took stock of the situation and developments and noted that the Government and the managements were moving ahead with their agenda like implementing Khandelwal committee recommendations, outsourcing of permanent jobs, etc. and hence felt that the agitational programmes should be further continued and strike actions are to be resorted to if the situation so warrants.

All India Dharna before Parliament on 14-12-2011: On 14-12-2011 UFBU held a Dharna at Jantar Mantar near the Parliament Street in New Delhi. Leaders of our constituent unions led the Dharna. The Dharna was addressed by Shri Gurudas Dasgupta, MP, Sri Tapan Sen, MP, Sri D. Raja, MP and Sri R.C. Singh, MP. They assured that while bank employees fight for their demands on the streets, they would espouse our cause inside the Parliament. The Dharna was also addressed by the leaders of the UFBU. While congratulating the participants in the Dharna, they emphasized and reiterated the need for intensified struggles against the increasing attacks on the banking sector, on our jobs, job security, wages and service conditions and on our trade union achievements in the form of banking reforms, Khandelwal Committee recommendations, etc.

Delegation to the Government: During the Dharna, Delegation from UFBU met Mr. D K Mittal, Secretary, Dept. of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India and submitted a detailed memorandum to the Government on our various issues and demands. Delegation urged upon the Government not to proceed with any action unilaterally on issues like Khandelwal Committee report, banking reforms, etc. and also pointed out that bank employees demands are being inordinately delayed and not resolved and hence bank employees are highly agitated over the same.

Mr. D K Mittal who received the delegation, heard UFBU viewpoints very patiently and assured that the Government would be willing to discuss all the issues raised by the UFBU including the recommendations of the Khandelwal Committee, proposed amendments to the Banking Laws, Compassionate appointment scheme, pension related demands, etc. and desired discussions in a smaller forum between the representatives of the Government and UFBU.

ALL INDIA DEMANDS DAY ON 19TH JANUARY, 2012: The UFBU meeting held on 13th Dec 2011 decided that to pursue our demands, 19th January, 2012 should be observed as All India Demands Day with the programmes like - Badge Wearing - Display of posters - Dharna in all State Capitals & Centralised Demonstrations/Rallies in all cities and towns all over the country.

DEMONSTRATIONS BEFORE HEAD OFFICES OF ALL PSBs: The meeting also decided that joint mass demonstrations should be organized before the Head Offices of all the Public Sector Banks. Some programmes are already over. On 17th Jan 2012, the demonstrations will be held at the following places.

Mumbai: State Bank of India

Bangalore : Vijaya Bank

All India General Strike on 28-2-2012:

The meeting noted that Central Traded unions have given the call for All India General Strike on 28-2-2012 against the anti-labour policies of the Government and in pursuance of our 10 point common charter of demands. While endorsing all these demands and welcoming the united action by the Central Trade Unions, the constituent unions felt that they would discuss the issue of joining the strike in their respective forum and take decisions shortly.

NOBO EC MEETING AT HYDERABAD ON 22-01-2012

Inorder to take stock of the present situation in the banking industry vis-a vis the stands taken by the IBA and Govt of India on various issues, and also to discuss about the agitational programme already taken up by the UFBU, the Central committee of NOBO will meet at Hyderabad on 22-01-2012 at Maharashtra Mandal Hall.

DR S.U.DESHPANDE APPOINTED AS DIRECTOR OF BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

Government of India has reappointed Dr SU Deshpande as Officer Employee Director on the Board of Bank of Maharashtra. The notification was released by Mr Vijay Malhotra, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India. Dr Deshpande is working as Senior Manager with bank. He is President of Bank of Maharashtra Officers’ Organisation and also the present General Secretary of National Organisation of Bank Officers. Dr Deshpande earlier was appointed as Director on Bank’s Board on 17th March,2008 and this is his second consecutive term. CBOO wishes him success in his assignment.

SYNDICATE BANK OFFICERS ORGANISATION CONFERENCE HELD AT KANYAKUMARI

SBOO affiliated to NOBO, held its All India conference at Kanyakumari on 22nd & 23rd November 2011. Sri Ashok Mallya, has been elected as General secretary at the General Body meeting held. Sri Prabhakar Bhat has been re-elected as President for second term. CBOO wishes both of them success in their respective assignments. Outgoing General Secretary & veteran trade union leader Sri M.S.Bhagawath was felicitated for his contributions to the trade union field as well growth of SBOO. Sri Bhagawath has successfully lead the SBOO for over a decade and he has been one of the most successful and effective defense representative. He has also authored a book on Disciplinary matters & defense. Sri Bhagawath retired from the services of Syndicate bank recently and is the sitting president of our parent body NOBO. CBOO wishes Sri Bhagawath a happy retired life.

CBWO HOLDS ALL INDIA CONFERENCE AT JAIPUR

Our sister union Canara Bank Workers’ Organisation will hold its All India Conference at Jaipur on 4th & 5th February 2012. They have extended invitation to all our members to attend the inaugural function of the Conference. Our Bank’s C&MD Sri Raman has agreed to address the delegates. CBOO wishes the Conference a grand success.

ORGANISATION VAARTHA

E.C. MEETING HELD AT BANGALORE ON 11-12-2011

Our Organisation (CBOO) held its Executive committee meeting on 11-12-2011 at Bangalore. Various issues concerning the officers were discussed thread bare, and decisions were taken to safe guard the interest of our members in the prevailing situation, where discharging duties honestly in the bank also exposes to many risks attracting Disciplinary action. It is felt that in view of many loopholes in the present CBS package, members are required to be very alert. Our members should play the role of whistle blowers with regard to prevention of frauds. Maintaining password secrecy is to be given utmost importance. As the officers handling advances portfolio attract more explanations & charge sheets, members are called upon to be very careful in handling the portfolio. Deviations from the systems and procedures and violation of guidelines should be strictly avoided. Unlawful orders/ instructions of higherups need not be obeyed.

The EC observed a minutes silence to respect the departed soul of our member Sri Sua Lal Meena, officer, Bundi branch in Rajasthan who expired recently. A cheque for Rs 1.00 lakh has been handed over to his wife Mrs. Sita Devi, by our Organisaing secretary Sri Hazarilal Meena under the death relief scheme of our Organisation.

During the discussions in the EC, it has been felt that the staff welfare measures in our bank is no where near to those prevailing in many other banks, including smaller banks. Management has not taken any positive steps with regard to the following long pending demands:

1) Monthly conveyance to the probationary officers at par with the confirmed officers.

2) Increasing the fixed limit of Monthly conveyance as well the petrol limit.

3) Increase the rental ceiling of quarters.

4) Cleaning allowance to all the officers.

5) Avoiding mid-academic transfers

6) Deploying adequate staff at the branches to solve the problems faced by the officers.

7) Remove the confidential OPAS system, and make it open as before.

Retail lending was a trump card for the branch managers in business development. Retail lending at branch level was very fast and the branch in charge who knew the entire background of the customer, was very effective in judging the cases and the sanction & disbursals used to be very fast. After creation of the Retail Hubs, it is generally felt that the entire process is delayed and the branch heads have become silent spectators. Present branch heads, most of whom have good banking experience and exposure over two to three decades have more capabilities in handling the Retail Lending. Hence it is desired of the bank management to review the issue and delegate powers to the braches..

Co-option of new members to EC:

During the period under review, some of our Committee members have been promoted to Scale IV and inorder to fill the vacancies, the EC has co-opted the following members to the Executive Committee:

1) Dr Lalith Seedhar, officer, AF Section, C.O.Chandigarh

- Proposed by Sri M.B.Eswaraiah (Yelwal Mysore), seconded by Sri Rajakumar

(Jammu) and approved by EC

2) Sri Sambashiva Rao, Senior Manager, Uppal branch, Hyderabad

- Proposed by Sri Manohar Rao (Hyderabad) ,seconded by Sri Ranganath

(Roddam) and approved by EC.

However, the committee members and office bearers who have recently retired from the services of the bank, shall continue to serve the Organisation in their respective capacities till the next General Body meeting.

Retirement of our President from the services of the bank on superannuation:

President of our Organisation, Sri Madhusudan retired from the bank after 40 years of meritorious service. It was a co-incidence that the 11th December happened to be the birth day of Sri Madhusudan. He was felicitated by the EC. The EC placed on record his contributions to the trade union field as well as to the bank Sri Madhusudan who will continue as the President of CBOO & Vice president of NOBO till the next General Body, has assured the EC that he will spare more time to the Organisation work after retirement from the bank.

Tour programmes:

The EC decided to hold a meeting of our activists from North India at Jaipur on 4th & 5th Feb 2012, where our sister concern CBWO will be holding their General Body. It has been decided that a team of activists from Central office shall tour North India and visit some our circles and branches. Accordingly a tour plan has been chalked out. The details of the tour programme of the central office activists is furnished herebelow for the information of our respective local activists :

1) Reaching Delhi on 03/02/2012 morning at 09.15 AM- Delhi CO & branch visit- Leaving for Jaipur at 10.25 PM on the same day.

2) 04/02/2012 - Jaipur CO & branch visit -05/02/2012 : Meeting of our activists from North India - Departure for Delhi by bus before 7.00PM.

3) Reaching Delhi on 06/02/2012 - catching early morning train to Chandigarh at 4.25 AM to reach Chandigarh at 10.15 AM - Chandigarh C.O.& branch visit - Departure to Dehradun by bus at 5.30PM to reach Dehradun on the same day night for stay.

4) 07/02/2012 - Dehradun C.O.& branch visits- Departure to Meerut by bus at 2.30PM to reach Meerut at 7.00 PM for stay.

5) 08/02/2012 – Meerut C.O.& branch visits - Departure to Agra by bus at 2.00 PM to reach Agra at 8.00PM for stay.

6) 09/02/2012 – Agra C.O.& branch visits - Departure to Delhi by train at 3.30 PM and to Bangalore thereon by 9.40 PM Karnataka Express.

Oragnisational matters session was initiated by Sri Hazarilal Meena (Organising Secretary). Sri R.R.Kulkarni (Vice president), V.K.Goyal (Vice president), Sri K.Subramani (Dy Gen Secy), Sri T.Mohanraj (Asst Gen secy), Sri Manohar Rao (Asst Gen secy), and Sri N.C.Sharma (Joint secy) placed their points of views and suggestions for the growth of the organisation, apart from other committee members. Many action plans are chalked out by the units for membership drive, including tour programmes & contact programmes. It was also decided to hold an office bearers meeting at a convenient future date for discussing the arrangements for next General Body due by the end of 2012 to be held at Bangalore.

EC was presided over by our President Sri A.N.Madhusudan and all the deliberations were guided by Sri M.S.Bhagwat, President NOBO. Our beloved trade union leader Sri Mohan Kumtakar addressed the members. Ashok Mallya, Gen secy Syndicate Bank Officers Organisation was also present. Veteran trade union leader Sri K.N.L.Rao graced the occasion with his concluding remarks.

AN APPEAL TO OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE CADRE

It is a well known fact that the present banking is an era of ACCOUNTABILITY, and executives are also not spared from stringent Disciplinary actions in some cases. In such events, they naturally seek Defense support from the Unions of which they were members before their promotions to executive cadre. Apart from this, the executives, who are well wedded to the ideologies which they believe, want to continue their association with the respective officers unions even after their promotions. In the case of our Organisation, many executives have continued their association with CBOO even after their promotions to Scale IV and above, by not discontinuing their subscriptions. Till recently their subscriptions were deducted through Check-off facility. For obvious reasons, the bank management has suddenly stopped the check-offs of such executives. In view of this, we appeal to all of them to continue their association with our Organisation by remitting annual subscription by way of cheque in favour of CBOO.

LOKA VAARTHA

DAILY WAGERS NOT ENTITLED TO REGULARISATION

A Supreme court decision having far reaching effect on the life of daily wagers working in various public sector undertakings has appeared in the leading news papers of our country. The Supreme court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularization. They can only claim monetary compensation, the court stated in the judgement - BSNL vs Man Singh. In this case, workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work. They requested the government to refer the matter to labour court. It ordered BSNL to reinstate the employees. The government telecom company appealed to the Highcourt without success. But in the second appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the workers were not entitled to regularization merely because they had worked for one year. Though the retrenchment may be set aside as illegal, an award of reinstatement should not be passed. As monetary compensation, the employees were awarded Rs 2.00 lakhs each.

- contributed by Sri R.R.Kulkarni

LOAN DEFAULTERS’ VEHICLES CANNOT BE FORCIBLY SEIZED

In another judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld punitive damage on Financier of vehicles in case of forcible seizure. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd had given a loan to one Mrs. S.Vijayalaxmi for purchase of a Maruti Omni van. When she defaulted repeatedly and failed to honour payment of even a compromise settlement amount, the financier took away the van with prior information to the police. Vijayalaxmi approached the district Consumer Forum and complained of deficient service. District Consumers Forum imposed a punitive damage of Rs 5,000/- on the Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd, for their action. When the financier approached State Commission for redressal, the punitive damage against them was enhanced to Rs 50,000/-. Then the financier filed a petition before National Consumer Dispues redressal Commision, which upheld the Sate Commission’s verdict in July 2007. Challenging the National Commission’s verdict, the financier approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench constituting Justice Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Joseph and S.S.Nijjar in their judgment ruled that – Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire-purchase agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use of force. Till the time loans were paid in its entirety and ownership had not been transferred to the purchaser, the financier normally continued to be the owner of the vehicle. But that does not entitle him (financier) on the strength of the agreement to take back possession of the vehicle by use of force. The guidelines which had been laid down by Reserve Bank of India as well as the appellant bank (Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd) itself, in fact support and make a virtue of such conduct. If any financier of a vehicle resorts to force to take back possession in violation of such guidelines or principles as laid down by the Supreme Court, such an action cannot but be struck down.

- contributed by Sri R.R.Kulkarni

Editorial committee:

A.N.Madhusudan,

B.K.Irwathraya,

Subramani,

L.V.Shivaswamy

G.V.Nayak

M.H.Shivaprakash,

Mail your Contributions/ Suggestions to Canara Bank Officers Organisation (Regd), 114/6, III Floor, Subedar Chatram Road, Opp:Hotel Hoysala, Seshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020.

(Ph:080-23460988)

e-mail: bkirwathraya@yahoo.co.in

If undelivered, please return to:

Canara Bank Officers Organisation (Regd), 114/6, III Floor, Subedar Chatram Road, Opp:Hotel Hoysala, Seshadripuram,

Bangalore – 560 020.

Ph:080-23460988

To

Shri/ Smt. …………………………….

. . . . . . . ……………………………….

…………………………………………

…………………………………………

Friday, December 24, 2010

STUDY CLASSES FOR PROMOTION 2010-BANGALORE


CBOO & CBWO Jointly arranged Coaching classes for Promotion aspirants in Bangalore for one week from 9-6-2010. Sri R.K.Nai, General Manager, STC inaugurated the classes. Sri Shivaram Sr Manager , organised the classes. Sri Madhusudan, President CBOO welcomed & Sri Ganeshmurthy, Vice president CBOO presented memento to Sri R.K.Naik.










CBOO EC MEETING AT PUNE ON 25-7-2010


CBOO EC meeting was held at Pune on 25-7-2010. NOBO General Secretray Sri S.U.Deshpande speaks. Sri B.K.Irwathraya, General Secretary CBOO, Sri M.S.Ganeshmurthy, Vice president & Sri M.S.Bhagwat, President NOBO & Sri Bapu Joshi are on the Dais.

Sri V.G.Desai, ex-president CBOO is seen among the audience.

Sri V.G.Desai was honoured for his immence contribution in building the CBOO.
Sri V.G.Desai family hosted a HIGH TEA to the team constituting Sri M.S.Bhagwat , B.K.Irwathraya, M.S.Ganeshmurthy, L.V.Shivaswamy, R.R.Kulkarni, G.V.Nayak & Lokanath on 24-7-2010 at his Pune residence.










Wednesday, November 10, 2010

NOBO EC MEETING AT PUNE ON 25-7-2010


NOBO EC meeting was held at Pune on 25-7-2010. President Sri M.S.Bhagwat addresses EC. General Secretary Sri S.U.Deshpande, Bapu Joshi & Sri Bhide are in the dais.
Sri Bapu Joshi was honoured for his achievement in persuading UFBU to make Pension option as the first and foremost
issue

NOBO General Secretary Sri S.U.Deshpande places his report before EC









































Tuesday, July 13, 2010

CBWU obtains court stay against recovery from employees opting for Pension now

CBWU has approached court in Chennai against recovery of 2.8 times of Pay as on Nov 2007 from the employees who opt for Pension now, and has obtained stay against the recovery of the amount from the arrears. The CBWU circular along with full plaint is reproduced herebelow for information of readers:

UPDATES ON THE INTERIM STAY ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

CANARA BANK WORKERS’ UNION(Regd.)

Anand Plaza, Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore-560 009

Phone : 22260185/22266469 email: workersunion@gmail.com

Circular No. 4/2010 Dated: 30 Jun 2010

Friends,

Ever since the news about our obtaining an interim stay at the Hon’ble Madras High Court was flashed through the internet on 23.06.2010, we have been receiving hundreds of calls from various parts of the country requesting them to provide additional details.

Simultaneously, a vicious propaganda was unleashed through SMS in the Tamil Nadu region that the stay is applicable only for our members and not for others. Those who had no idea about the details of our affidavit were spreading another rumour that by obtaining a stay order we have stopped all chances of getting any option for pension. In many other parts of the country, another sms campaign was going on that obtention of an interim stay is nothing but a false propaganda and there was no such stay. Many AIBEA leaders were quoting the internet and telling their members that no such case is available in the web site of Madras High Court.

On the contrary, congratulatory messages were pouring in thousands from bank employees from various parts of the country, especially from U. P., which has taken a lead in organizing their protest over this settlement from day one.

First let us make one thing clear. Our writ petition was filed only to quash the Clause 32 of the 9th bipartite settlement and that of Clause 1 of the pension settlement, in so far as the said clauses require the PF optees to contribute 2.8 times the Nov 2007 revised pay if they want to opt for the pension scheme. We had also further prayed to direct the respondents to strictly adhere to Clause 3 of the minutes of discussions held on 27.11.2009 between the IBA and the unions with regard to sharing the additional cost of pension.

Ever since the signing of the settlement, the UFBU has never come out with any communication for the reasons in their sudden change of stand from the earlier agreed terms of 1.6 times (as per the minutes of discussion on 27.11.2009) the revised pay from all the employees to putting the entire load on the PF optees. Now we have made all the signatory unions of the settlement, besides the IBA as respondents in our writ petition. The real face of all these unions will now become public when they file their counter to our writ petition in the HighCourt.

The earlier orders of the court was received by us late in the evening of 25.06.2010 and on perusing the verbatim orders, we observed some error in our representation. Our advocates moved the necessary motion before the Hon’ble High Court to set right those errors at the earliest opportunity viz., on 28.06.2010. The Hon’ble Court was pleased to permit the same and accordingly our case was listed on 29.06.2010 as an adjourned admission case.

During the course of the hearing on 29.06.2010, the advocates for AIBEA and IBA were present and they objected to the continuation of the stay and wanted the same to be vacated.. The Hon’ble Judge turned down their objections and advised them to file their counter, now that they have taken note of our writ petition. The Hon’ble Judge also ruled in the open court that he will issue amended orders as prayed for by us. Now the case has been posted for next hearing on 06.07.2010.

Friends, we now want all of you to be clear about one thing. The interim stay is only on the operation of Clause 32 of the 9th bipartite Settlement & Clause 1 of the pension settlement, only in so far as the said clause require the PF optees to contribute 2.8 times of Nov 2007 pay to become members of the Pension Fund. It is not limited just to our members alone, but applicable for all the bank employees who are affected by the said settlement. We have neither obtained any stay on the settlement nor have we interfered in any manner with the payment of arrears.

Our entire writ petition can be viewed in the internet at AllBankingSolutions.com and also at Bankers-Sangharsh.com, both of whom have been doing a commendable job of empowering the bank employees by bringing out the latest happenings in the industry.

It has also been brought to our knowledge that another sms campaign is going around advising the bank employees not to pay any money or donation for fighting court cases. To day, we can proudly inform everybody that Canara Bank Workers’ Union has not collected a single paisa from anybody for this court case expense nor do we intend collecting any donation or levy from any source. All our expenses are met through our own resources only. Let it be remembered that this union was nurtured by the late Shri Devidas Pai, our former General Secretary, a towering personality who was well known for his impeccable financial integrity and high moral standards.

With Greetings,

Fraternally yours,

(Balasubramanya Pai)

GENERAL SECRETARY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

W.P.NO. 12269 OF 2010

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

1. Canara Bank Workers Union (Regd.)Rep. by its General Secretary,

Chennai Office: 34/1 North Mada Street,Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034

2. Sri R Radhakrishnan, Son of Sri N.S. Rajabathar,34 North Mada Street, Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034 …. Petitioners

-Versus-

1. Union of India,Rep. by its Secretary,Banking Division, Ministry of Finance,New Delhi – 110 001

2. Indian Banks Association, Rep. by its Chairman,World Trade Centre,6th Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Parade,Mumbai - 400005

3. Canara Bank,Rep. by its Chairman & ManagingDirector, Head Office,112, J C Road

Bangalore-560 002

4. All India Bank Employees’ Association (AIBEA),Rep. by its General Secretary,Singapore Plaza,164, Linghi Chetty Street,Chennai – 600 001

5. National Confederation of Bank Employees (NCBE),

Rep. by its General Secretary, C/o State Bank of India-L H O, 3rd Floor,Bhadra, LalDharwaja

Ahmedabad-380 001

6. Bank Employees’ Federation of India (BEFI), Rep. by its General Secretary, Naresh Paul Centre,53 Radha Bazar Lane(First Floor)Kolkota- 700 001

7. Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation (INBEF),Rep. by its General Secretary,Bajaj Bhawan-I Floor,Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

8. National Organisation of Bank Workers’ (NOBW), Rep. by its General Secretary

Ram Naresh Bhawan, Tilak Gali,Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj,New Delhi-110 055 …

Respondents

AFFIDAVIT No.34, North Mada Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-

1. I am the 2nd Petitioner in the above Writ Petition and as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.

2. I submit that the Petitioners are filing this Writ Petition praying for the issue of a WRIT OF CERTIRARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records relating to Clause 32 of 9th Bipartite Wage Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses requires contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adhere to the clause 3 of Minutes of the discussion held on 27.11.2009 between IBA representing the Management of Banks which are parties to the Bipartite Settlement and five workmen unions viz. AIBEA, NCBE, BEFI, INBEF and NOBW with regard sharing the additional cost of pension on account of wage revision in excess of statutory contribution of 10% of pay and pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.

3. I submit that the 1st Petitioner is Canara Bank Workers’ Union, a registered trade union of the employees of Canara Bank, with Registration No.NGP/45 dated 24th November, 1965 with its membership spread in various states throughout the country, and is not affiliated to any of the Respondent Unions which have signed the present impugned settlements. The list of members of the 1st Petitioner is enclosed herewith as Annexure to the Writ Petition.

4. I submit that I am a member of the Managing Committee of Canara Bank Workers’ Union (Regd.) and also an affected workman and presently working at Canara Bank, A R M Branch, Chennai.

5. I submit that the 2nd Respondent is a body representing managements of all Public and Private Sector Banks who are its members and is mandated by these Banks to negotiate and enter into a settlement with all the apex employees / officers Unions operating in various Banks. That, the terms and conditions of services of employees of Banks are governed by the provisions of Sastry Award and Desai Award as modified by various Bipartite Settlements entered in to by the Indian Banks Association and various apex unions, including Pension Scheme of the Bank Employees.

6. I submit that, in Para 414 of the Sastry Award, the Hon’ble Tribunal has clearly observed that:

“We have considered this matter very carefully. We find from the statement of accounts filed by the Bank in relation to this Fund that the apprehensions of the Bank on this part are not wholly justified. The position both in respect of its general profits as well as the earnings out of this Pension and Guarantee Fund is such that for some years to come the absence of employees’ contributions would not really create any difficulty for the Bank.The Bank also pointed out that contributory pension funds are not unknown in other countries and referred us to some institutions which provide for such contributory funds. This is not doubt true; but generally speaking a pension ought really to be independent, if possible, of any contributions from the employees. On a rough calculation, it appears that for 3 or 4 years after retirement the members’ own contributions generally suffice for payment of pension under the rules of this Fund. It is only thereafter that the general fund contributes towards employees’ pension fund. In other words, there is really no pension earned by the employees from the Bank’s fund during the first 3 or 4 years. Agreeing with the view of Shri Gupta and also of the Sen Tribunal we are of opinion that the employees contributions should be stopped.”

A Photocopy of the Para 414 of the Sastry Award is enclosed in the Typed Set of papers.

7. I submit that from time to time the Indian Banks Association and various apex unions of the Bank employees(listed herein as Respondents No. 4 to 8) enter into Bi Partite Settlements in respect of terms and conditions of Services including pension scheme for Bank Employees.

8. I submit that for the first time in the year 1993 the Indian Banks Association and various apex unions of the Bank Employees entered into a settlement on 29.10.1993 (hereinafter referred as Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993) in respect of the Pension Scheme. Here it is important to highlight that prior to 1993 there was no general scheme of Pension for Bank Employees and there was no Pension Agreement in Banks. In the Banks there was only Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in which The Banks’ and Employees made contributions equally at effective rate i.e. 8.33% or 10%.

9. I submit that in the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 in Cl 2.ii it was provided that the Pension Fund will be constituted by transferring Bank’s Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest there on to the Pension Fund and there was no provision that the employees shall have to pay any amount other than the one as provided in Clause 2.ii. A copy of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 is enclosed in the Typed Set of papers.

10. I submit that after the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 the Govt. of India issued a Notification and thereafter all the member Banks of the 2nd Respondent, Indian Banks Association published Pension Regulations for its employees, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, which is known as Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995, thereby making these pension regulations statutory in nature.

11. I submit that the Chapter 3 of the aforesaid Regulations provide for provisions for Composition of the Pension Fund wherein Regulation 7 provides as under:

“The Fund shall consist of the following, namely:-

a) the contribution by the Bank at the rate of ten per cent per month of the pay of the employee;

b) the accumulated contributions of the bank to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such transfer in respect of the employees;

c) the amount consisting of contributions of the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions contained in these regulations;

d) the investment in annuities or securities purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;

e) amount of any capital gains arising from the capital assets of the Fund;

f) the additional annual contribution made by the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these regulations;

g) any income from investments of the amounts credited to the Fund;

h) the amount consisting of contribution of the bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.”

A copy of the relevant pages of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.

12. I submit that from a perusal of the Regulation 7 of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulation it is clear that there is no provision for contribution of any amount by the employees, other than The Banks’ Contribution to P.F. Account along with accrued interest thereon.

13. I submit that Regulation 11 of the said Chapter III that provides for Actuarial Investigation of the Fund clearly states that:

“The Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the Fund every financial year, on the 31st day of March, and make such additional annual contributions to the Funds as may be required to secure payment of benefits under these regulations. Provided that the Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the Fund, as on the 31st day of March immediately following the financial year in which the Fund is constituted.”

14. I submit that from a perusal of the above Regulation 11 it is clear that it is for the individual member banks to cause an investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund every financial year, on the 31st day of March, and make such additional annual contributions to the pension fund as may be required to secure payment of benefits under these regulations. This regulation also does not envisage any contribution from the employees towards the pension fund and the entire responsibility of ensuring adequacy of funds solely rests on the individual banks.

15. I submit that in pursuance of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and the Pension Regulations 1995 a number of employees opted for Pension and they became members of the Pension Scheme and they had to surrender only the Banks’ Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with Interest accrued thereon, to the Pension Fund. As such the employees who opted for Pension in the year 1993 and 1995, no amount other than the Banks’ Contribution to P.F. Account along with accrued Interest has been charged.

16. I submit that in terms of clause 22(4) (b) of the said pension regulations 1995, any interruption in the service of an employee due to participation in strike shall entitle forfeiture of his entire past service and shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. As a result of this penal clause many of the employees did not opt for Pension. However the said penal clause was ultimately removed as per the decision of Government of India, communicated to member banks by the 2nd Respondent in the year 1998.

17. I submit that subsequent to the introduction of Pension Regulations, the bank employees had wage revisions during the years 1995 (6BPS), 2000(7 BPS) & 2005(8BPS) by way of bipartite settlements. During the 7th Bipartite Settlement of the year 2000 , the 2nd Respondent imposed that a share of the wage revision increase to be passed on to all the employees to augment the pension fund, and the same was agreed to by the Apex Unions, even though the Pension Regulations do not envisage any contribution by the employees.

18. I submit that during the 7th Bi-partite settlement, the increased cost of pension was worked out at 26.5%. After reducing the statutory contribution of 10% by the banks, the balance of 16.5% was shared between the employees and the Banks @ 8.25% + 8.25% (Fifty/Fifty). Thus from out of the wage revision offered, this pension fund gap was first filled, and the balance amount was offered as revised wages to the employees. It is pertinent to note here that even the PF optees had to forego a portion of their wage revision for building up this pension fund, as a result of the above act of the 2nd Respondent.

19. I submit that similarly in the 8th Bi-partite Settlement of 2005, the increased cost of pension of 30.5% was shared as 10% (statutory contribution), 9.25% by the employees and 11.25% by the banks. (Shared at 45:55) and thus it can bee seen that all the employees irrespective of their option had contributed to the increased cost of pension.

20. I submit that after deletion of the penal clause on strike and because of the fact that all employees including the PF optees were forced to contribute to the Pension fund, all the employees who did not opt for Pension earlier and various unions raised a demand for extending 2nd option to such employees, as similar options were extended to the employees of Reserve Bank of India in the year 2000. Thereafter on 27.11.2009 the Indian Banks Association and the Respondent unions (under a common platform styled as United Forum of Bank Unions, also called as UFBU) have mutually agreed in respect of extending another option (2nd Option) to join the Pension Scheme to the leftover Bank employees. The Record Note of Discussions signed on the same day specifically provides under Point 3 (b) that 30% of the identified gap in the Pension Fund is agreed to be shared by all the employees who are in service of the Banks as on the date of the Memorandum of Settlement to be signed”. A copy of the Minutes of Discussions and Record Note of Discussions dated 27. 11. 2009 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.

21. I submit that thereafter on date 27.4.2010 the 2nd Respondent and different apex unions of the UFBU entered in to a Pension Settlement under Provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Act 1947 in respect of extending 2nd option of Pension to those employees who did not opt for Pension in the year 1993/1995 and had thus continued to remain a member of contributory Provident Fund Scheme. A copy of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.

22. I submit that Clause 1 & 2 of the terms of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 provides the relevant provision for opting Pension in respect of working employees as on the date of the settlement Relevant provision of the terms of settlement is quoted below:

(1) “All workmen employees are in the service of the bank as on the date of this Settlement who exercise option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of this Settlement will contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of the Settlement between the parties dated 27th April 2010 an amount of Rs. 878 crores towards their share in the amount of Rs. 1800 crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs. 6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised pay for the month of November 2007, for individual workmen employees.”

(2) “Another option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to those employees who:-

(1) (a) were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks of State Bank of India and continue in the service of the bank on the date of this Settlement;

(b) exercise an option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of the Pension Fund and

(c) authorize the Trust of the Provident Fund of the bank to transfer the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon to the credit of the Pension Fund.

23. I submit that thereafter on the same day i.e. on 27.4.2010 the 2nd Respondent and different apex unions have entered in to another settlement hereinafter referred as 9th Bipartite Settlement (9th B.P.S.) and Cl.32 of the 9th B.P.S. provides the provision of another option for Pension. The Cl.32 of 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 runs as under:

“32. Another Option for Pension (in Banks other than State Bank of India) Workmen employees in the service of the bank as on 27th April 2010 and who exercise their option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of the Settlement dated 27th April 2010 will contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in terms of this Settlement an amount of Rs.878 crores towards their share in the amount of Rs.1800 crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs.6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007.”

A copy of the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of papers.

24. I submit that, in the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and in the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 it has been provided that those employees who want to opt to join Pension Scheme now, shall have to pay 2.8 times of the revised pay as on November 2007 from the arrears payable to them on account of 9th B.P.S., additionally apart from Banks’ contribution to P.F. account along with interest accrued thereon. I submit that the above Clause 32 of the 9th Bi-partite Wage Settlement dated 27.04.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses requires contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund is liable to the quashed for the following among other grounds.

G R O U N D S

A. In the previous Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and Pension Regulations 1995 there was provision only for transfer of Banks’ Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with Accrued Interest and there was not any provision for payment or transfer of any other additional amount.

B. While in the earlier 7th and 8th Bipartite Settlements, all the employees (both pension and PF optees) have contributed to the funding gap in the Pension fund, in the present settlement the entire load has now been placed only on those employees who want to opt for pension, while the existing pension optees are left free. I submit that the above contemplated recovery exclusively from the present PF optee’s who now wish to join the Pension Fund amounts to discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

C. Even assuming that no further option is given for the Pension, still there would have been a shortfall/gap in the Pension Fund as it had in the past and that no proposal has been provided by the 2nd Respondent to bridge that gap by recovering exclusively from the existing Pension optees.

D. That, here it is submitted that by virtue of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 those employees who shall opt for Pension Scheme now shall have to transfer a huge amount like Rs.60,000 to Rs. 1.50 lacks according to the category and designation from the arrears payable on Wage Revision said to take effect on account of 9th B.P.S. w.e.f. 1.11.2007 to 30.4.2010.

E. That, if, for the purpose of comparison, we take the case of two identical employees in the same cadre with the same of date of joining and retirement and one of whom is a Pension optee and the other one a PF optee, the PF optee will have to shell out an additional amount of anywhere between Rs,60000/- and Rs.100000/- to join the Pension fund now, though ultimately both of them will be drawing the same of amount of Pension at their retirement. If giving option on different dates is the only reason for this disparity then it is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice.

F. That, whatever the present pension optees have so far contributed to the Pension fund, the same has been matched by the PF optees as well and therefore loading the entire burden on the PF optees who now wish to join the Pension fund is wholly unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory

G. That, insertion of provision for transfer of 2.8 times of Revised Pay as on November 2007 to the Pension Fund in the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Cl.32 of the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 is wholly illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the Constitution of India.

H. That, here it is pertinent to highlight that Respondent No.7, Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation (A Banking Wing of INTUC) has lodged protest vide its General Secretary’s Letter dated 27.4.2010 and has signed the 9th B.P.S. under protest. A copy of the said letter dated 27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.

I. It would not be out of place to mention that from time to time the Reserve Bank of India and Indian Railways have given fresh and 2nd option to join Pension Scheme to its employees and there was no provision for transfer of any additional cost apart from employers’ Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest. Especially in the case of Railways, as a result of various improvements in the service conditions or implementation of the Pay Commission’s recommendations etc. fresh options were again allowed to the staff to join the pension scheme as these improvements had bearing on the pensionary benefits. In all 12 such options were allowed. A copy of the Master Circular issued by the Indian Railways with regard to giving fresh option is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.

J. The Petitioners have been advised to state that the provision of transfer of additional amount to the tune of 2.8 times of the Revised Pay as on November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to the Provident Fund Account with Accrued Interest is not envisaged under the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 and is against the provisions of Article 309 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I submit that the Petitioners have been advised to state that if the operation of the provisions for transfer of 2.8 times of Revised Pay as on November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest as embodied in Clause 1 and 2 of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause 32 of the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 is not quashed then a large number of employees of the Bank shall be driven out and dissuaded to exercise the option and they shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury and the same would be by way of penalty for not opting earlier.

K. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in so many cases that the Pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the Employer and it is a vested right of the Employees.

L. The action of the 2nd Respondent is wholly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory and is totally contrary to the earlier agreed terms of sharing by al the employees, as per the minutes of the discussions recorded on 27.11.2009.

M. The Petitioners have been advised to state that by virtue of imposing the provision regarding transfer of 2.8 times of revised Pay of November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with Accrued Interest from the arrears payable to employees on Wage Revision is punitive and shall dissuade them from opting for Pension Scheme and this is against the Social Security measures of the Government. N. The Petitioners have been advised to state that in view of the various amendments and modifications effected to the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995, “especially removal of the deterrent penal clause on strike”, that the 2nd Respondent should have given one more option to the employees for joining the Pension Scheme (as was done in the case of RBI and the Railways), without imposing any preconditions, which act alone would have served the ends of natural justice.

O. The Petitioners have been advised to state that by virtue of Regulation 7 and Regulation 11 of the Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations 1995 that there is absolutely no scope for the 2nd Respondent to recover any amount except the Bank’s contribution of PF and interest accrued thereon, and whatever the sum of money recovered earlier from the wage revision of individual employees in the name of bridging the Pension fund gap is highly illegal and therefore such amounts so deducted by the member banks of the 2nd Respondent have to be refunded to all such employees.

25. I submit that by virtue of the impugned clause 32 of the 9th Bi-partite Settlement dated 27.04.2010 requiring the present contributory provident fund optees to contribute at 2.8 times of revised pay as of November, 2007 to the Pension Fund, the members of the Petitioner Union are now required to contribute nearly Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- from out of the wage-revision arrears and the same has been withheld by the 3rd Respondent Bank in order to enable the respective members to exercise their option. In view of the various grounds stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of operation of Clause 32 of 9th Bipartite Wage Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses requires contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.

26. I submit that if the members of the 1st Petitioner Union wants to exercise option to pension fund, then they have to agree for contributing at 2.8 times of revised pay as of November, 2007 as otherwise their option will not be processed. As stated earlier, as per the Minutes of Discussion held on 27.11.2009 between the Respondents 2 to 7, it was agreed that the additional cost of pension on account of wage revision in excess of statutory contribution of 10% of pay will be shared equally between management and employees and the share of employees will be deducted from the wage increase. Thus, it can be seen that no distinction was made between pension optees and CPF optees with regard to the contribution payable to the pension fund. However, in the impugned settlements the pension optees have been left out from making any contribution to the pension fund and only CPF optees are made liable to pay to the pension fund. In the event of the members of the 1st Petitioner Union refuses to contribute to the Pension Fund the Respondent Bank may not accept the option exercised by the CPF optees to become a pension optee. In such circumstances, it is just and necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue ad interim direction directing the Respondent Bank to accept the option exercised by the members of the 1st Petitioner Union without insisting on contribution at 2.8 times of revised pay as of November, 2007 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.

27. I submit that, the Petitioners have not filed any other Writ Petition before this Hon’ble Court for the present relief and this is the first writ petition.

For the foregoing among other reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIRARIFIED MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction calling for the records relating to Clause 32 of 9th Bipartite Wage Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses require contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 to the Pension Fund and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adhere to the clause 3 of Minutes of the discussion held on 27.11.2009 between IBA representing the Management of Banks which are parties to the Bipartite Settlement and five workmen unions viz. AIBEA, NCBE, BEFI, INBEF and NOBW with regard to sharing the additional cost of pension on account of wage revision in excess of statutory contribution of 10% of pay and pass such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and render justice.

Solemnly affirmed and signed his )

Name in my presence at Chennai )

On this the day of June, 2010 ) BEFORE ME

Page No:

Corrections: Nil ADVOCATE, CHENNAI