DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO THE FALSE PROPAGANDA UNLEASHED BY VESTED INTEREST
ADHERE TO AND REMAIN FIRM ON TRUTH AS IT EXISTS ON RECORDS
The reference of Industrial Dispute raised by United Forum of We Bankers to National Tribunal is a significant historical development which has its adverse impact on the existing system of negotiation and settlement under the principles of collective bargaining. Obviously, any development which is aimed at eradicating the present system would be disliked by those who are beneficiary of such system.
Thus, it is not surprising that leadership of existing well established unions and associations, their supporters and activists are involved in circulating and making viral such messages which are aimed at undermining the efforts of We Bankers. They are interpreting the Order of Hon'ble High Court and consequent Order of the Central Government to refer the matters arising out of terms of reference in such a manner as to confuse the general bank employees who are not capable of analyzing the situation as it exists and correlating it to terms of reference for correct interpretation. It is manifest that if one wears the pairs of pale glasses; everything which he sees appears to him to be the pale. UFBU and its constituents are not able to digest the initial success of young and inexperienced leadership of We Bankers that may culminate into historical success and may also end the game of "trade" in the name of "union" which is being played since last 54 years. In order to counter the propaganda being launched against We Bankers by these vested interests it is necessary to clear doubts that arise to wrong interpretation of the terms of the reference. In pursuance of our policy of transparency, we wish to clear the doubts created by vested interests.
In order to understand the terms of reference, one has to first read the opening Para of the Government order carefully and then co-relate it with the Schedule instead of reading the Schedule of Reference in isolation. It is mentioned in the opening Para that Central Government is of the opinion that an Industrial Dispute is apprehended between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Banks Association and others and the United Forum of We Bankers. Thus, as per the said Orders, the dispute relates to the management of Indian Banks Association. Does it need any argument that no one other than Public Sector Employer Banks exercises the management of Indian Banks Association in the matter of negotiation with the Unions and signing the Settlement in respect of Salary, Pension and other service conditions? Are not bank employees aware that United Forum of We Bankers has challenged the power, competence and authority of Indian Banks Association in the management of industrial relations relating to fixation of Salary, Pension and other terms of Service?
Now in order to understand the apprehended dispute between employer banks with regard to "management of Indian Banks Association" one has to go through the mandate given by these employer Banks to IBA vis-à-vis reply submitted by IBA and these employer banks during the course of conciliation proceedings relating to industrial dispute raised by We Bankers. It is most important to mention here that few employer banks have provided copy of the mandate given to Indian Banks Association in reply to RTI Application and if we go through these mandate we find that neither there is any mention of either UFBU or any of its constituent Union nor any recognized union in suchmandate. For example, we show the mandate given by State Bank of India and erstwhile Dena Bank as proof of what we have stated. Contrary to these mandate, IBA in its reply during the conciliation proceedings stated that it has no mandate to negotiate with United Forum of We Bankers, United Forum of We Bankers is not recognized in any bank etc. The Government while taking a decision on reference of industrial dispute has noticed that reply from IBA does not conform to or resembles with the mandate given by employer banks in as much as that mandate given by employer banks does not specifically prohibit IBA to negotiate with We Bankers as has been pleaded by it in its reply. We Bankers had opposed the statement of IBA during the course of conciliation proceedings stating that UFBU is also neither registered nor recognized nor having membership in any of the bank. As such statement of the IBA is discriminatory which does not conform and resembles with the mandate given by employer banks. Thus, undoubtedly and clearly there is a conflict or dispute between employer banks and United Forum of We Bankers with regard to statement given by IBA in the matter of mandate. Considering these conflicts and difference, the Central Government has formed an opinion that there is apprehended dispute between employers and We Bankers on management of Indian Banks Association.
Now after clearing our doubts with regard to apprehended industrial dispute between employer banks and the United Forum of We Bankers, we need to interpret and understand the Schedule of terms of reference given in the order which is required to be adjudicated by National Industrial Tribunal. The Schedule reads as under:
"Whether the refusal of Indian Banks Association in not entertaining the demands of of United Forum of We Bankers is justified and whether this can be entertained as Industrial Dispute?"
(1) In order to interpret and understand the above schedule one must have the knowledge of position of Indian Banks Association and the definition of Industrial Dispute. Has not IBA clarified its position through its own Law Circular dated 30.09.2019? Can IBA be regarded as employer by any stretch of imagination? Does it need any argument that only employer can refuse to entertain the demands of its employees? Thus, Government has asked the National Industrial Tribunal to decide whether the refusal of Indian Banks Association instead of employer banks in not entertaining the demands of the We Bankers is justified? Is it not clear that while adjudicating this question, National Industrial Tribunal will have to decide the power, competence and authority of Indian Banks Association in the matter of refusal of demands raised by We Bankers? If Tribunal decides that Indian Banks Association had no power, competence and authority to refuse to entertain the demands of United Forum of Bank Employees then it will have to consider and decide the demands raised by We Bankers. In order to understand the meaning of question whether refusal of Indian Banks Association in not entertaining the demands can be entertained as Industrial Dispute, one has to go through the definition of industrial dispute given in Section 2 (k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:
"2 (k) "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen, or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour, of any person;"
A perusal of Law Circular dated 30.09.2020 issued by Indian Banks Association itself make it clear that Indian Banks Association denies that its position is that of employer. In the instant case the Public Sector Banks which were impleaded in the Industrial Dispute are in the capacity of employers. As such instead of Indian Banks Association, these employer banks ought to have refused to to entertain the demands raised by We Bankers and not IBA. Thus, dispute or difference between IBA and We Bankers is not an industrial dispute because IBA does not fit in the definition of employer. Once National Industrial Tribunal decides and reaches to the conclusion that it is not an industrial dispute, it has the power to implead Employer Banks in place of IBA to make it an Industrial Dispute which has been referred to it for adjudication and in that process it will have to entertain the demands raised by the We Bankers and would have to adjudicate the same.
The next doubt is with regard to word-"apprehended" used before industrial dispute. The so called learned persons have interpreted the word-"apprehended" to mean that there is doubt as to whether the dispute is an industrial dispute or not. These extra ordinary brilliant persons having expertise in interpreting the words must go and read sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which reads as under:
"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals.-
(1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time], by order in writing,--"
Here the meaning of the word-"apprehended" is "perceived" and not suspicion as is being made out. Thus, government has perceived that there is dispute between employer and we bankers.
These Learned persons involved in false propaganda must carefully read the reply given be employer banks. For example we are providing reply given by Bank of Baroda. On the question of formation of Separate Pay Commission for Bank Employees and abolition of Indian Banks Association, Bank of Baroda has not declined the demands but has stated that these are the matters to be decided by the Government. Does not the reply from Bank of Baroda supports the views of We Bankers that Government must abolish Indian Banks Association and must take a decision on formation of separate Pay Commission for Bank Employees in line with CPC for Central Government Employees?
We hope that we have clear all the doubts which have been purposely created by vested interests with malafide and bad motive of undermining the genuine and honest efforts of We Bankers.
