UFBU and IBA agree to sign 11th bipartite @12.60%

DA FOR BANKER FROM NOV 2018 IS INCREASE 66 SLAB I.E 6.60%

Today i.e. on 31.10.2018, Consumer Price Index (CPI) data for the month of Sep'18 announced. On the basis of CPI data announced by the Govt for the month of July'18 to Sep'18 the percentage of increase in DA is 6.60% and total revised DA slabs is 607 Slabs and total percentage of DA payable is 60.70%

Read Provision of valid strike rule under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-under public utility service

A post with regard to declaration of banking as public utility service is in wide circulation wherein a Circular of PNB has been attached as proof and an attempt has been made to show as if it is the first time that Government has declared banking as Public Utility Service. Through the said post efforts have been made to create panic and develop a reign of fear and terror amongst bank employees by making out that declaration of Banking as Public Utility Service means ban on Indefinite Strike and if Unions give call for indefinite Strike, Government may arrest employees on strike invoking ESMA and force them to work. At this crucial time when Bank Employees are demanding and pressurising their Unions to give call for Indefinite Strike, it appears that it’s a mind game that is being played to justify useless routine one two day strike. Since the intention behind such a wise post does not appear to be genuine, on declaration of Banking as Public Utility Service so that young bank employees become aware of legal position.

(1) It is not the first time that banking has been declared Public Utility Service. Since the learned person who wrote the post has cited PNB Circular as proof, we think it proper to let bank employees know as to how many times and what interval PNB has issued same Circular. This data reveals that this circular is frequent which is being issued after every six months ordinarily though there are exceptions. These Circulars are taken lightly by trade union workers and I have never seen in the past that such a hue and cry would have been made. There are logical reasons for that.

(2) Schedule-I of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides a list of Industries which may be declared as Public Utility Service. Section 2(n)(vi) gives power to the Government to declare any of the industry given in that list as Public Utility Service.

Now it would be prudent to know about right to strike and what impact declaration of Banking Industry as Public Utility Service has on such right to strike.

The right to strike in the Indian constitution set up is not absolute right but it flow from the fundamental right to form union. As every other fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions, the same is also the case to form trade unions to give a call to the workers to go on strike and the state can impose reasonable restrictions. Supreme Court held:

"right to strike or right to declare lock out may be controlled or restricted by appropriate industrial legislation and the validity of such legislation would have to be tested not with reference to the criteria laid down in clause (4) of article 19 but by totally different considerations."

Thus, there is a guaranteed fundamental right to form association or Labour unions but there is no fundamental right to go on strike. Under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the ground and condition are laid down for the legal strike and if those provisions and conditions are not fulfilled then the strike will be illegal.

Provision of valid strike under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947-

Section 2(q) of said Act defines the term strike, it says, "strike" means a cassation of work by a body of persons employed in any industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal, under a common understanding of any number of persons who are or have been so employed to continue to work or accept employment. Whenever employees want to go on strike they have to follow the procedure provided by the Act otherwise there strike deemed to be an illegal strike.

What is the impact of declaration of Banking Industry as Public Utility Service on right to Strike?

Section 22(1) of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 provides that no person employed in public utility service shall go on strike in breach of contract:

a. Without giving to employer notice of strike with in six weeks before striking; or
b. Within fourteen days of giving such notice; or
c. Before the expiry of the date of strike specified in any such notice as aforesaid; or
d. During the pendency of any conciliation proceedings before a conciliation officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.

It is to be noted that these provisions do not prohibit the workmen from going on strike but require them to fulfil the condition before going on strike. Further these provisions apply to a public utility service only.

It is also necessary to know what if Banking would not have been declared as Public Utility Service? What difference such declaration has made for which so much hue and cry is being made? The answer can be found in provisions of Section 23 which applies to both Public Utility Service and Non-public utility service as under:

General prohibition of strike-

The provisions of section 23 are general in nature. It imposes general restrictions on declaring strike in breach of contract in the both public as well as non- public utility services in the following circumstances mainly: -

a. During the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a board and till the expiry of 7 days after the conclusion of such proceedings;
b. During the pendency and 2 month’s after the conclusion of proceedings before a Labour court, Tribunal or National Tribunal;
c. During the pendency and 2 months after the conclusion of arbitrator, when a notification has been issued under sub- section 3 (a) of section 10 A;
d. During any period in which a settlement or award is in operation in respect of any of the matter covered by the settlement or award.

Use of ESMA:
Most funny thing in the post is about use of ESMA. A little bit google would make it clear that though Essential Services Maintenance Act is a Centre Act, its implementation is in the hands of State Governments. Strike in essential services like Railways, Roadways, Water, Electricity, Banks etc. are bound to result in great hardship to public. So its natural that any Government would use repressive measures to crush the Strike as was done around 1973 in respect of Strike in Railways. Why Trade Union Leaders must be afraid from going to Jail. Trade Union Leader means a person who has undaunted courage to undergo any sort of humiliation and pressure. At least for our retired leaders, there is no threat of loosing job which is always there for those leaders who are in service.

So no significant change has taken place in the matter of right to Strike. Now a question must peep into the mind of every reasonable person as to why such post has been written and made viral? We give logical answer to this basic question also.

We all know that Strike is most powerful weapon of the workers. As such it must be sparingly used in situation where all possible efforts for realisation of demand have been made but the Government/Management is so adamant that it is not ready to accept reasonable and logical demands. Thus, Strike must not be resorted to in a routine manner by giving call for one-two day’s useless Strike as is being done by our Unions but it must be resorted to as last resort and with “Do or Die” spirit i.e. Ya to Jeetenge ya Haarenge.

Now all of you would have become aware that declaration of Indefinite Strike in an Industry declared as Public Utility Service means threat of compulsory conciliation through intervention of Government Machinery for resolving dispute between workers and their employers. We all know that such conciliation proceedings are carried out by Chief Labour Commissioner/Regional Labour Commissioners. During these conciliation proceedings, discussions held between employer and representatives of workers are recorded as minutes of conciliation proceedings. Copies of such proceedings can be easily obtained. So in the event of call for indefinite Strike, Bank employees will become aware of through records of conciliation proceedings as to what employer is saying and what our representatives are saying. In such situation it would be too difficult to use clever and tactical words like “Decent” “Respectable” etc. If you all will read provisions made in this regard, you will become aware that Conciliation Proceedings are not like Court like proceedings, these have to be concluded within 14 days which may be extended at the discretion of Conciliation Officer and such discretion can’t be for one two years as is the case with our negotiations. If conciliation fails, failure of conciliation report is submitted to the Government and Government is duty bound to refer the dispute to National Tribunal i.e. just like Shastri Tribunal which gave Shastri Award. Those who have read Shastri Award would be aware that it gives details of what parties put forth before the Tribunal. In other words quality of leadership of particular union gets exposed.

Thus, in our considered opinion declaration of Banking as a public utility service has given unions an opportunity to utilise legal position to the advantage of Bank Employees. We know it well that if matter would be decided by a third party, the plea of paying capacity would not work in view of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of NIT of employees of RRBs.

Why Many Bank Staff Hate or Dislike or Are Anmoyed with Their Union Leaders

Why Many Bank Staff Hate or Dislike or Are Anmoyed with Their Union Leaders

One of retirees from bank has expressed why bank staff are annoyed with their union leaders. I am just submitting it below to know the views of others. All bank staff has to retire a day , hence reasons of annoyance  with union leaders are same for all bank staff  --either working oŕ retired.

Friends,
why bank staff get annoyed on their union leaders ?

1. Because our leaders never cared for exclusion of clause in the final penduon regulation draft 1995  that the pension scheme agreed with the unions was on the pattern of schemes of RBI and central government.

2. Because they did not object inclusion of clause 22(4) which obstructed majority of employees from opting pension scheme.

3. Because after being directed by the IBA, the clause 22(4) was deleted in 1996 by the banks but unions  did not ensured thst the option  be given to the remaining  employees.

4. Because , the employees were offered second option in 2012 with the condition to return 156% of the CPF and pension to be paid wef 25.11.2009 instead of from the date of retirement in violation of terms of pension regulation 1995.

5. Because the unions never took seriously the issue of updating of pension whereas it us being regularly revised in case employees of central government

6. Because it was never cared by then to raise the percentage of family pension to 30%.

7 Because the leaders were  never vigilant on the calculation of gratuity due to misinterpretation of certain terms in the gratuity act and did not took up the issue with the banks even after it was directed by DLC hyderabad, Ranchi, Silchar and  by Hob'ble High Court of Jabalpur

8. Because they conspired with banks to offload their liability of health care of retirees and put them in a very difficulty situation by agreeing for continuous hike of premium for the consecutive four years which is out of  the reach of pensioners as it disproportionate to their meagre pension.

9. Because , the unions could not even succeed for getting some subsidy on premium for retirees of all banks.

10 . Because the unions could not ensure the similar date of payment of enhancement of gratuity limit since 1.1.2006 and such discrimination is continued till  in the of case 1.1.2016 .

11. Because the unions made an unprecedented tradition of creating another special allowance in 10th BPS  which was not to be counted for pension and gratuity and retirees suffered reduction in pension and gratuity amount.

12. Because, the leaders indulged in ego fight for leadership and sacrificed the retirees interest who gave them the respect  and support throughout their service period but leaders cheated and  misutilised the union funds contributed by retirees.

13 . Because the unions agreed to sign the 10th BPS document in which a suicidal clause was inserted narrating that they could not negotiate on retirees issues as they had no contractual agreement with the retirees.

14.  Because the unions failed for merger of 100% DA in case if retirees of the period between 1998 to 2005 only due to their inner fight.

15. Because they never raised voice against introduction of National  pension scheme which has no surity of the pension amount.

16. Because they never cared for the future of employees who joined after 2010 without pension .

17. Because they never bothered  to resolve hundreds of retirees issues of the individual retirees who  had to contest in the courts for years in their old age.

18.Because they always failed to sign the BPSs within a reasonable period probable with intention to collect more levy

19. Because the unions could not succeed in getting a respectful increase in the last  five BPSs and the bank employees are now at the lowest .

20. Because, the unions failed to check the introduction of cross selling in banks which spoiled the traditional business of banking and made the officers corrupt and greedy.

21. Because they failed to oppose the campaign of government to disrepute the bank employees holding them responsible for increasing NPA and low performance of banks making grounds  privatisation.

22. Because they have failed to check merger of banks which causes humiliation of bank employees .
ENDLESD REASONS TO  ANNOYANCE AND ANGUISH
Bhateja

Retirees Make Appeal To PM Mr. NARENDRA MODI

Retirees Make Appeal To PM Mr. NARENDRA MODI

Appeal  to Prime Minister to be sent by maximum number by new members of ALL INDIA BANK RETIREES ACTION FORUM  within 30 October  2018 ( If required with suitable amendment)

To
 The Honourable Prime Minister of India,              Date                       
                                                                                                          Government of India,
 South Block,
 New Delhi - 110001

Respected ModiJi
I am glad that under your dynamic and able leadership the country is moving in forward direction inspite of huge problems piled for many years without any solution by previous  government .The exchequer has been paying hefty salary and pension even to the employees like teaching and non-teaching staff of all educational institutions like schools and colleges owned even by private individuals,  though they are not the employees of the government.

But the employees of nationalized banks owned by government, who translate all your economic policies by cracking their bones from dawn to dusk and beyond and on holidays too, are paid least salary much below what is paid to other government employees. The cardinal truth that retirees are the backbone of the industry and implement policies like Jan Dhan Yojana, Mudra loans and even bank retirees have involved themselves in active support  during demonetization which is now severely criticized  by politicians in opposition. Our grievances of pension updation and  revision of family pension, ignored for last 25 years. Now bank retirees are shown  the doors of court by  IBA with their irresponsible communication with no hope for solution.

You may be misguided by your secretaries and IBA stating that the health of the banks will be affected if pension in banks is updated like  government employees.   When civil pension is out of the exchequer and causes expenditure to the government, pension in banks is out of the Pension Funds, which is the money and property of the employees, and causes zero expenditure to the banks or to the government.    The Pension Funds of all banks are having annual growth which can foot three to four times the present pension to all their pensioners yet a fair deal in pension is denied to them due to lack of will.
I earnestly make a fervent appeal to you to look into the matter expeditiously and be please to do right to the bank retirees who are now placed in cross roads without updating of pension.
Thanking You,

Yours respectfully,

Joint Action Program by Bankers

                              Ref:201/110                                                   Date : 27.10.2018

    The Office Bearers, Central Committee Members, State Body Chiefs
    A.I.B.R.F.

    Dear Comrades

                  Re: Joint Meeting of CBPRO & AIBRF in Delhi on 24.10.18

Meeting of  Committee of CBPRO & AIBRF consisting of two Conveners of CBPRO & General Secretary, AIBRF was held in Delhi on 24.10.2018 to draw joint  strategy to pursue the pending issues of retirees vigorously in coming months which are likely to be very crucial for forthcoming wage settlement and  to realise retiree demands. We below reproduce the joint communication issued on the decisions taken in the meeting.

    “Dear Comrades

As already informed to you, an informal meeting OF CBPRO AND AIBRF leadership took place on 24th October 2018 at Delhi.

It was decided that the Coordination should aggressively chalk out programs to realize core issues of Bank Retirees - 1.Family  Pension  2. Pension Updation.  3. 100%DA Neutralization. 4.Full Reimbursement of Medical Insurance Premium to Retirees. 5. Reckoning of Special Allowance for Superannuation Benefits. 6. IBA should hold talks with the   Coordination Body of Bank Retirees.

The Meeting also decided that UFBU should be approached to  take a clear stand  positively and seriously in respect of our issues in the ongoing Wage Negotiations and ensure resolution of the issues immediately or at the most along with the Current Wage Settlement.

It was also decided in the Meeting to hold massive Dharna and Demonstrations in important cities across the Country from last week of November 2018 culminating in  very big Dharna and Demonstrations  in Delhi and Mumbai. 

Detailed Circular follows. “

With Regards,

A. Ramesh Babu   K V Acharya                             SC Jain

   Conveners CBPRO                                    General Secretary AIBRF.
  
             
  
                                                                         Yours Sincerely,
                                                           
                                                                   


                                                                       ( S.C.JAIN)
                                                                GENERAL SECRETARY

Jaitley meets Heads of six large public sector banks today

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday met heads of top public sector banks to review the cash position in the system amid concerns of a liquidity crunch being faced by some sectors, sources said.
Banks said they have enough cash to take care of the liquidity crunch being faced by the non-banking finance companies, they added.

The meeting was also attended by the Department of Financial Services Secretary and Department of Economic Affairs Secretary.
Heads of six large public sector banks have assured the government of adequate liquidity in the system even as sectoral concerns prevail, the sources said.
Among the banks that were present at the meeting were State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Bank of Baroda, Union Bank, and Bank of India.
Sources said the housing finance regulator National Housing Bank (NHB) has lined up an expanded refinance window to deal with the liquidity concerns of the housing finance sector.
Earlier this month, NHB increased the refinance limit to Rs 300 billion for housing finance companies for 2018-19. It had originally set the refinance target at Rs 240 billion.
Shares of most of the housing finance firms, including DHFL, have been hammered in the past few weeks due to liquidity concerns triggered by debt defaults by IL&FS.
Earlier Friday, Financial Services Secretary Rajiv Kumar said the government will soon announce measures to curb liquidity concerns and the deteriorating asset quality among financial institutions.
Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank Friday said it will inject Rs 400 billion into the system in November through purchase of government securities as it looks to meet festive season demand for funds.
For the month of October, the central bank has already injected Rs 360 billion in the system through Open Market Operations (OMO).
"Based on an assessment of the durable liquidity needs going forward, RBI has decided to conduct purchase of Government securities under OMOs for an aggregate amount of Rs 400 billion in the month of November 2018," the central bank said in a release.
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had earlier stated that the system liquidity will move into deficit in the second half of 2018-19 and that the evolving liquidity conditions would determine its choice of instruments for both transient and durable liquidity management.

RBI deputy governor Viral Acharya has once again raised the .. ISSUED OF FREEDOM OF RBI

 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) deputy governor Viral Acharya has once again raised the prickly issue of independence of the central bank and its lack of powers to regulate public sector lenders. According to the deputy governor, the use of RBI’s balance sheet has also emerged as a point of friction, as also the attempt to appoint a separate payments regulator bypassing the central bank.

“One important limitation is that the Reserve Bank is statutorily limited in undertaking the full scope of actions against public sector banks (PSBs) — such as asset divestiture, replacement of management and board, licence revocation, and resolution actions such as mergers or sales — all of which it can and does deploy effectively in case of private banks,” said Acharya.

The deputy governor also reiterated some of the points made by governor Urjit Patelin the war of words between the RBI and finance minister Arun Jaitley earlier this year, in the wake of the Nirav Modi fraud at Punjab National Bank, where Jaitley indicated that while politicians are held accountable, regulators are not.


Strongly hitting out against the government’s constant pressure to relax asset qualification norms, Acharya said, “Sweeping bank loan losses under the rug by compromising supervisory and regulatory standards can create a facade of financial stability in the short run, but inevitably cause the fragile deck of cards to fall in a heap at some point in future, likely with a greater taxpayer bill and loss of potential output.” The deputy governor was delivering the AD Shroff memorial lecture in Mumbai on Friday.

In his speech, Acharya dwelt extensively on the constitutional crisis in Argentina — where the government had appropriated the central bank’s reserves, triggering a crisis. Explaining the reasons for the differences between central banks and the government, Acharya said, “A government’s horizon of decision-making is rendered short, like the duration of a T20 match...There are always upcoming elections of some sort. In contrast, a central bank plays a test match, trying to win each session but, importantly, also survive it so as to have a chance to win the next session,” said Acharya.

According to Acharya, the reason why a central bank had to be independent was to protect the economy from such short-termism. While recent measures such as setting up a monetary policy committee, recognising the RBI’s role in exchange rate management and interest rate setting had bolstered the RBI’s positions, some actions had undermined them.

The deputy governor said that while elections may drive the government, markets provide the discipline against short-term measures as was seen in the case of Argentina.

“The market can discipline the government not to erode central bank independence, and it can also make the government pay for its transgressions. Interestingly, the market also forces central banks to remain accountable and  

Banking industry has been declared Public Utility Service w.e.f. 25/10/18

It is illegal1) one for the purposes of calculation of salary and 2) the other for calculation of pension.

V. Raghunath Sharma started this petition to Ministry of Finance and Indian Bankers Association. I refer to the landmark judgment of the supreme court in special leave petition No 20661-20668/2012 .where in the “Supreme court upholds the definition of Pay as per Bank employees’ pension regulation 1995 for calculation of pension in the judgment pronounced on 13-02-2018 vide canara bank v/s Savitri Venugopal and others. Among other things the court has observed the following which are relevant to the bank employees who retired after November 2012. : 1) There cannot be two pay scales 1) one for the purposes of calculation of salary and 2) the other for calculation of pension. In other words the pay taken for the calculation of salary should be reckoned for the purpose of pension also. In case of employees retired on or after 01-11-2012 the bank had introduced a new pay called " Special Pay" which was eligible for payment of DA etc but kept it out of the preview for calculation of pension for retirees under the 10th Bipartite settlement with a clause as under QUOTE: Special Allowance (w.e.f. 1.11.2012) With effect from 1.11.2012, officers shall be paid Special Allowance as under: Scale I-III - 7.75% of Basic Pay + applicable Dearness Allowance thereon Scale IV-V - 10% of Basic Pay + applicable Dearness Allowance thereon Scale VI-VII- 11% of Basic Pay + applicable Dearness Allowance thereon Note : The special allowance with applicable DA thereon shall not be reckoned for superannuation benefits, viz, pension including NPS, PF and Gratuity. " The said supreme court judgment has very clearly laid down that the above system of having two pay scales one for the purpose of calculating salary and the other one for calculation of pension is illegal" The special allowance which was “carved” out of basic pay portion and given a new nomenclature with intention to deprive the actual pension benefits of the pensioners ( with a view to manage the cost agreed upon and benefit only the existing staff) and is held as illegal by the supreme court. The 10th bipartite settlement signed between the unions and IBA through the above said " New Allowance", which was a part of basic pay for calculation of Salary did not find a place for calculation of Pension thereby the Banks, in agreement with IBA had two separate set of calculations for Salary and Pension. Now that the Supreme court has held that " there can not be two separate calculations for salary and pension" the banks have to include the New allowance paid for salary for calculation of pension also. The act of introducing two separate scales for calculation of salary and pension has resulted in reduction of pension payment to the retired bank employees which also resulted in recovery of pension paid to the pensioners according to the earlier settlement. Normally the revision of salary for Employees of Insurance sector is on the same patron followed in Banking industry ( as both banking and Insurance come under the same finance ministry) but strangely this injustice has been avoided in the Insurance sector wage revision. The supreme court judgement now provides relief to the pensioners. The ministry has to instruct the Indian Banks Association to take corrective measures and calculate pension for the retirees on the basis of 10 months' ‘average emoluments’, as defined in Regulation 2(d) of the Regulations of 1995, (specified that the average of the pay drawn by the employee during the last ten months of his service in the Bank) shall be taken as “Average Emoluments”, so as to work out the pension under Regulation 35(2). This in effect would mean that the bank managements have to re-calculate pension as per Pension Regulations, 1995 and pay arrears from the date of retirement. With this the retired Bank employees will get : 1) Refund of recovery made on illegal recovery of pension, 2) Get the basic pension re fixed at legitimate levels, 3) Get arrears on gratuity, commutation of pension etc. This gives great relief to the retired staff who solely depend of pension and superannuation benefits for the rest of their life. H Trust truth prevails and justice done.

OBC turns profitable in Q2 on lower provisions; asset quality improves...

OBC turns profitable in Q2 on lower provisions; asset quality improves... 



Public sector lender Oriental Bank of Commerce turned profitable in July-September quarter despite lower other income and operating income. The bank reported net profit at Rs 101.7 crore for the quarter against loss of Rs 1,750 crore in year-ago and loss of Rs 393.21 crore in June quarter. Lower provisions and tax reversal helped the bank come back in black. Net interest income grew by 1.8 percent year-on-year to Rs 1,275 crore with loan degrowth at 8.5 percent for quarter ended September 2018. Asset quality improved sequentially as gross non-performing assets declined at 17.24 percent against 17.89 percent in June quarter. Net NPA also fell at 10.07 percent against 10.63 percent QoQ. In absolute terms also, gross NPAs were down 1.8 percent quarter-on-quarter to Rs 25,673 crore and net NPAs down by 3.3 percent to Rs 13,795 crore in second quarter of FY19. The bank has reported provisions and contingencies at Rs 1,074 crore, which were lower by 30 percent sequentially and 67 percent YoY. Provision coverage ratio also improved to 65.31 percent at the end of September quarter against 64.5 percent in June quarter. The bank has received tax write-back of Rs 203 crore during the quarter against expenses of Rs 20 crore in same period last year. Other income (non-interest income) as well as operating profit dropped sharply by 37 percent each to Rs Rs 677.72 crore and Rs 972.5 crore in Q2 YoY.

Govt has finally put its stamp on the long-awaited pension scheme for Bank Employees

The government has finally put its stamp on the long-awaited pension scheme for regional rural bank employees but they may have to wait at least another six months to get their dues.

The final shape of the scheme has failed to satisfy the retired employees as their demand for arrear payment has not been considered. The government approved revised pension only from April this year while RRB employees were demanding higher pension at par with their counterparts in nationalized banks for the past two decades.
The employees were demanding pension parity with effect from November 1993.

Till date, they used to get a measly sum as pension (something between Rs 1000 and Rs 2500 a month) from Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Pensioners will first have to return the banks’ contribution to Provident Fund to become eligible for the new scheme.

“We will urge the government to make ex gratia payment to pensioners before all the formalities are done which may take another six months,” said Abdul Sayeed Khan, general secretary, National Federation of Regional Rural Bank Officers. About 30000 RRB employees, who were in service as on September 1, 1987 and joined before April 1 2018 can be considered for pension parity.

Newcomers who joined after March 31 this year will come under National Pension Scheme, which is the rule for nationalised bank employees since April 2010.

The National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development prepared A Model Regional Rural Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation 2018, a Model RRB (Officers and Employees) Service Amendment Regulations, 2018 and a Regional Rural Bank (Employees) Pension Scheme, 2018; in consultation with finance ministry. The schemes have been vetted by the Ministry of Law & Justice and approved by the government, according to a ministry communication to Nabard dated October 23.

The respective RRBs will have to place the model schemes before their board as the section 30(1) of RRBs Act 1976 empowers their boards to make regulations by notification in Official Gazette.

“This will be a lengthy process,” Khan said.

RRB associations won the protracted legal battle for pension parity on April 25 this year by way of a Supreme Court verdict. The Court had directed the government to implement the pension scheme within three months from the date of verdict.

our new site address

https://bankingnews.co.in/

The major cause of current banking crisis is huge asset liability mismatch; but nobody is talking about this

Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) Rajiv Mehrishi on Tuesday questioned the role the of Reserve Bank of India in the present banking crisis, asking what the regulator was doing when the banks were lending huge amounts that resulted in asset-liability mismatch and huge bad loans.

The banking sector had non-performing assets (NPAs) or bad loans worth over Rs 9.61 trillion by the end of 2017-18, according to government data.

"In the present banking crisis, we all have a narrative about how it can be sorted out, recapitalisation of course, which is a very strange word to be used for the subsidies, but nobody is asking the real question that what actually the regulator (Reserve Bank) was doing. What is its role, what is its responsibility?," he asked while speaking a the launch of Indian School of Public Policy (ISSP).

The major cause of current banking crisis is huge asset liability mismatch; but nobody is talking about this, there is a lack of public policy debate, Mehrishi said.

He said India lacks a flourished bond markets in absence of which the banks are forced to lend to long-gestation infrastructure projects. And when these projects run into any hurdle, their difficulties percolate into the difficulties of the banks, he said.

The CAG also pointed out that there is a lack of public policy debate or a narrative on the root causes of the banking crisis; and also, nobody is talking or writing about the role of the regulator.

Despite from banks' own mismanagement as well as theft of public money which are amongst the reasons behind the banking sector mess, there is much more to this which is complex to understand, he said further.

"If the banks were going berserk with their lending, then what was the regulator doing? And if it (regulator RBI) is accountable for this crisis or not, that is also a narrative nobody is talking about," he said.

Of the over Rs 9.61 trillion banking sector NPAs as on March 31, 2018, Rs 853 billion emanated from agriculture and allied activities while the bulk of Rs 70.3 million originated from loans to the industrial sector.

Speaking on economic reforms and the centre-state relationships in enacting changes, the chairman of the 14th Finance Commission and former Revenue Secretary N K Singh said the centre alone cannot bring about the economic overhauling.

"The economic reforms cannot merely be taken by the central government.

For example labour reforms and the land reforms, it has been left to the skills of state government what they want to enact and believe the changes needed for economic reforms," Singh said.

He also talked about the pedagogy built around the centre-state relationships and the unfinished agenda of India's important economic reforms and said mere tinkering will not do and deep structural reforms are needed.

He said India dearly needs the structural reforms and a lot of these relate to what the state governments can do in this direction.

The Indian School of Public Policy will begin its first batch of one-year full-time programme in public policy, design and management to professionals with 2-3 years of relevant experience from 2019.

The school intends to develop a new class of policy leaders for India by equipping policy professionals with knowledge, skills, wisdom and ethics to understand, design and implement local solutions to India's enduring policy and governance challenges, ISPP said.

ONLY SBI AND BOB MAKE PROFIT IN 2ND QUATER

After every quarter of disappointing performance in the past, investors had hoped that the worst may be behind for bad loan-ridden public-sector banks (PSBs). But, it seems they may have to wait for another quarter, at least. Despite some expected moderation in slippages, the September 2018 quarter (Q2) is also expected to be relatively muted thanks to sustained provisioning pain and high funding costs. Thus, overall earnings, as compared to the year-ago period, are expected to remain under pressure in Q2 with many PSBs seen reporting losses. Some banks, though, could see sequential improvement.

"PSU banks are expected to report profit of Rs 3 billion (base quarter Q2'FY18 reported profit of Rs 29 billion), with Bank of Baroda (BoB) being the only bank among our universe that is expected to post profit after tax growth," said analysts at Motilal Oswal Securities in their earnings preview.

According to analysts at Emkay Global, the pace of fresh slippages is likely to have gone down sequentially in Q2, but overall credit costs (provision as a percentage of average loan book) should remain at elevated levels. Though exposure to IL&FS can add to bad loans for some banks, accelerated non-performing assets (NPAs) or bad loan recognition in the past two quarters is expected to help. Nevertheless, NPA ageing, which requires banks to set aside higher provisions as bad loans grow older, along with mark-to-market (MTM) losses on their bond portfolio, is expected to keep provisioning elevated, say analysts.

ALSO READ: PSB leaders likely to take spiritual and wilderness route to climb up

Sources: Brokerage reports, Capitaline

Firstly, unlike in the June 2018 quarter, resolution of large NPAs under National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT; list 1) was muted in Q2. While this would mean additional provisioning on existing NPAs, resolution for mid/small accounts should partly restrict the provisioning impact.

Secondly, PSBs continued to reel under bond market pressure in Q2, though the pain would be lower than in the June 2018 quarter. However, it would mean some MTM losses, thereby requiring banks to provide for the same. PSBs are major investors of government bonds (G-Sec) and according to the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI's) guidelines, the former need to provide for any erosion in market value of G-Sec (MTM losses) on a quarterly basis. The market-value of G-Sec is inversely related to bond yields, which (10-year G-Sec yields) rose by 12 basis points in Q2 to 8.02 per cent. Moreover, some banks, which had used RBI's dispensation to spread MTM losses since the December 2017 quarter equally over four quarters, could see higher pain. Not only provisioning, but high bond yields are also expected to weigh on other income due to lower treasury gains. 

ALSO READ: PSB losses to come down to Rs 500 billion in FY19, says CRISIL report

"Bond yields during the September quarter have also been volatile, hence treasury income is not expected to make significant contribution. Also, retail and corporate fees are likely to remain tepid, leading to weak other income on yearly basis," analysts at Sharekhan said in their Q2 preview report.

On the operational front, revenue could also feel the heat from high funding cost and slower credit growth, despite lending rate hikes undertaken by many banks.

According to RBI's data, the overall credit of the banking sector rose 12.4 per cent year-on-year as of September 2018. Much of this is estimated to be driven by the retail segment, as observed in August 2018. Since most PSBs have more exposure to corporate/wholesale account, loan book is expected to have risen below the industry level. As of August 2018, industry credit grew a meagre 1.9 per cent year-on-year. Although, the retail and small and medium enterprises (SME) segments are likely to have provided some support. 

ALSO READ: Govt okay with rejigging of crisis-hit IL&FS' long-term loans from PSBs

Among major PSBs, the State Bank of India (SBI), BoB and Punjab National Bank (PNB) are expected to report five-seven per cent year-on-year increase in advances in Q2. The loss for PNB is expected to decline sequentially, while SBI is seen returning to profits in Q2 (after three consecutive losses). BoB, however, is expected to see strong profit increase, say analysts.

Why some few UFBU leaders desperately trying to spoil the future of lakhs of Clerk, Substaff and Officers of Public Sector Banks by colluding with IBA?

It is time to come out of our differences as Officers and Workmen and unite together to take a tough yet bold decision to decide our future…

Let us not allow the decade old leaders to spoil our future…

The IBA-UFBU wage Talks has become a big Drama drafted by some UFBU leaders in collusion with IBA and Govt. The OCT 12 talks is yet another series of the Drama…

From the prolonged delay in the Wage talks the agenda of some of the leaders is getting exposed..…and they have also lost their guts and courage to call for Strike neither to demand Salary nor to Stop Mergers…

At this juncture, very important development is….

Two Historic writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.21195 of 2018 & W.P.(MD) No.19947 of 2018) have been filed at Madurai bench of Madras High Court one by Com Dhanasekar and another by Canara Bank OBC Welfare Association to direct the IBA to implement minimum starting pay of Group C employees in Central Govt to the Workmen (Clerk & Sub staff) and Group A salary to JMGS I officers based on the Creamy Layer Notification issued by Department of Financial Services dated 06.12.2017 which states that

“JMGS I of PSBs will be treated as equivalent to Group A in Govt of India”

&

Clerks & Peons in PSBs will be treated as equivalent to Group C in Govt of India”

Without bringing parity in the salary and perks implementation of this notification is not possible hence the Writ petitions were filed. Once implemented, the cadre wise salary and perks will be same for all bankers irrespective of the category.

The said Notification was sent to the CEOs of all PSBs and the Chairman of IBA on 06.12.2017 itself. All the UFBU leaders were also aware of this notification.

But, when the DFS notification says that workmen and officers of PSBs are equivalent to the Group C and Group A employees of Central govt respectively, who is IBA to stop that? Why some UFBU leaders also trying to stop that?

The Hon’ble Court also kindly considered our demand as genuine and sent notices to IBA and DFS to submit their reply. If the IBA implement the direction of the Hon’ble Court if comes in our favour, then the bankers starting Basic Pay will be as follows.

Cadre 7th Pay Commission 10th Bi-Partite

Sub Staff 18000 9560

Workmen 35400 11765

Officers 56100 23700

If the UFBU Leaders are sincere in their efforts to achieve Wages equivalent to Central govt Staffs then they should have pressurized the IBA to implement the Notification of Department of Financial Services dated 06.12.2017. But they have not done so. This shows their agenda is entirely different and certainly not in favour of us…

Whether they are going to get us more than the salary of Central Govt Staffs through Bipartite?

The circular issued by Com Bandlish, UFBU Convenor on 13.10.18 speaks follows…

“1. IBA’s earlier offer of 6% should be substantially improved upon to work out a mutually acceptable wage accord. “

Why UFBU leaders should beg like this? and why the convenor should issue circular for begging? …when we have DFS notification and Judiciary in our support…

The UFBU convenor Com Bandlish should have issued the circular as follows…

“IBA should implement the Minimum basic pay of Group C Employees of Govt of India to Clerks and Substaffs, Minimum basic pay of Group A officers of Govt of India to JMGS-I officers as per DFS notification dated 06.12.2017”

But he did not….This shows they are not willing to demand Wages on parity with Central Govt employees.

The Charter of demands submitted by four officer organizations demanded the parity with Central Govt officers. Then how Com Bandlish was allowed by the leaders of those UFBU affiliates to issue such circular against their original demands?

It is learnt that IBA is going to submit a reply to the Hon’ble court that The Implementation of the DFS Order dated 06.12.2017 is not possible as the bankers wages are decided through Bipartite. Shocking point is some of the veteran UFBU leaders may also support the IBA stand…

To put it in Simple terms…

UFBU Leaders may give their consent to IBA that they will not demand implementation of DFS notification for Salary in parity with Central Govt Staffs.

When Govt notification supports our demands…When Judiciary considering our demands…Why some few UFBU leaders desperately trying to spoil the future of lakhs of Clerk, Substaff and Officers of Public Sector Banks by colluding with IBA?

We, 10 Lakh bankers should unite now and demand our leaders not to give consent to IBA either directly or indirectly against Court Notice.

Immediately after receiving this email/communication please share with your local, regional and national leaders of all 9 UFBU affiliates comprising both workmen and Officers and pressurize them not to beg on percentage concept but to demand Salary in parity with Central Govt employees.

Every single minute is important from now onwards comrades…

The Govt/RBI/IBA suck our blood for the pity salary…..Hence it is time to stand up and say…We are not salves anymore and we deserve more Wages equivalent to Central Govt Salary..

Go ahead and bombard the mailboxes and whatsapp of your respective leaders to support the Writ petitions (W.P.(MD) No.21195 of 2018 & W.P.(MD) No.19947 of 2018) to implement minimum starting pay of Group C employees in Central Govt to the Workmen (Clerk & Sub staff) and Group A salary to JMGS I officers based on the Creamy Layer Notification issued by Department of Financial Services dated 06.12.2017 which states that

“JMGS I of PSBs will be treated as equivalent to Group A in Govt of India”

&

Clerks & Peons in PSBs will be treated as equivalent to Group C in Govt of India”
I have attached the DFS notification and contact person to join the writ along with this email.

Go ahead comrades…

Comradely,

Sivakumar Duraipandy

W.P.(MD) No.19947 of 2018
**********************************

S DHANASEKARAN

S/O M M SUBRAMANIAN

PLOT NO. 130, S R V NAGAR MAIN ROAD,

THIRUNAGAR

MADURAI 625006

9489652559

8610528310

E. FOR COORDINATING KINDLY CONTACT

K R A MURUGAN

9597224488

W.P.(MD) No.21195 of 2018
*******************************

A.Santhana Pandiyan

Regional Secretary – Madurai Region

All India Canara Bank OBC Employees Welfare Association

Contact No: 8610885574

Bankers need to reject UFBU forthwith. Stop making payments of subscriptions to Unions and Associations. Make it clear to IBA and the Govt. that bankers will never accept any settlement on pay revision signed by UFBU. If the Govt. is not ready for constitution of a separate Pay Revision Committee for bankers, Bankers should immediately approach the Honourable Supreme Court of India for it so that a reasonable pay revision is awarded for the bankers which should be equal to other profit making industrial sectors. If 400% or 500% hike is not possible for the banking sector to come at par with other industrial sectors, the bankers should never accept any hike which is less than 100%. Having seen the operating profit of the banking sector for the previous financial year, it can easily revise pay for its employees with 100% hike.

Bankers should say #WETOO need justice against pathetic speed of bps and bad performance of both negotiating committee's