1. Home
  2. Bank unions Gear Up for two-day nationwide strike from Tomorrow, here's what happens

Bank unions Gear Up for two-day nationwide strike from Tomorrow, here's what happens

Agencies
May 29, 2018

Mumbai, May 29: Employees and officers of various state-run banks have called for a two-day nationwide strike from May 30 to protest a nominal 2 per cent wage hike offered by the Indian Banks' Association (IBA).

In the wage negotiation meeting held on May 5, 2018, IBA made a propositions to offer 2 per cent hike in the wage bill cost as on March 31, 2017.

It also maintained that the negotiations on officers demands would be restricted up to scale III officers only.

"It is only because of provisions towards NPA that banks have booked losses, and for this, bank employees are not responsible," United Forum of Bank Unions' convener Devidas Tuljapurkar told reporters here. He said in the last two-three years, bank employees have worked tirelessly for implementation of government initiatives such as Jan-Dhan, demonetisation, Mudra and Atal Pension Yojana, among others.

"This has resulted into huge increase in their workloads," he said.

In the last wage settlement, which was for the period November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2017, IBA had give a wage hike of 15 per cent.

Bank employees have organised a demonstrations on May 29 at State Bank of India' branch main branch at Fort here.

UFBU is an umbrella body of nine unions, including All India Bank Officers' Confederation (AIBOC), All India Bank Employees Association (AIBEA) and National Organisation of Bank Workers (NOBW).

Comments

Sohrab
 - 
Tuesday, 29 May 2018

These bank employees have the Best of working schedule and still they complaint everytime every year go for strike. The Govt must sack them and appoint news.

 

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
August 6,2020

New Delhi Aug 6: In a new twist in the Vijay Mallya case, a certain document connected with the case in the Supreme Court has gone missing from the apex court files. 

A bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit and Ashok Bhushan adjourned the hearing to August 20.

It was hearing the review plea filed by Mallya against a July 14, 2017 judgment wherein he was found guilty of contempt for not paying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks despite repeated directions, although he had transferred $40 million to his children.

The bench was looking for a reply on an intervention application, which it seemed has gone missing from the case papers.Parties involved in the case sought more time to file fresh copies.

On June 19, the Supreme Court sought explanation from its registry regarding Mallya's appeal against the May 2017 conviction in the contempt case for not repaying Rs 9,000 crore dues to banks not listed for the last 3 years.

A bench comprising Justices Lalit and Bhushan had asked the Registry to furnish all the details including names of the officials who had dealt with the file concerning the Review Petition for last three years.

The bench said according to the record, placed before it, the review petition was not listed before the court for last three years. "Before we deal with the submissions raised in the Review Petition, we direct the Registry to explain why the Review Petition was not listed before the concerned Court for last three years," said the bench.In May 2017, the apex court held him guilty of contempt of court for transferring $40 million to his children, and ordered him to appear on July 10 to argue on the quantum of punishment.

The bench said let the explanation be furnished within two weeks. "The Review Petition shall, thereafter, be considered on merits," it added.In 2017, the apex court passed the order on a contempt petition against Mallya by a consortium of banks led by the SBI. 

The banks claimed Mallya transferred $40 million from Daigeo to his children's accounts, and did not use this money to clear his debt. Banks cited this as violation of judicial orders.

stm88 info live rtp slot

slot auto scatter hitam

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 8,2020

New Delhi, May 8: The Supreme Court on Friday suggested that states should consider indirect sale and home delivery of liquor as per its statute and law to avoid crowding at liquor shops amid the ongoing coronavirus-induced lockdown.

A bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan refused to pass any orders on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking clarity on the sale of liquor and to ensure social distancing while it is being sold in liquor shops during the lockdown.

"We will not pass any order but the states should consider indirect sale/home delivery of liquor to maintain social distancing norms and standards," Justice Ashok Bhushan said while disposing of the petition.

The PIL, filed by one Sai Deepak, sought directions for closure of liquor shops for failing to enforce social distancing, which is essential to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

The petitioner told the apex court that he only wants that the life of common people is not affected because of crowding at liquor shops during COVID-19.

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, another judge in the bench, said that discussion on home delivery is already going on.

The top court, after hearing the petition complaining about flouting of safety norms at liquor shops, observed that it cannot pass any orders to different states but they should consider online sale and home delivery of liquor.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 4,2020

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday revoked the ban of cryptocurrency imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2018.

Pronouncing the verdict, the three-judge bench of the apex court said the ban was 'disproportionate'.

The bench included Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice V Ramasubramanian.

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), whose members include cryptocurrency exchanges, and others had approached the top court objecting to a 2018 RBI circular directing regulated entities to not deal with cryptocurrencies.

Advocate Ashim Sood, appearing for IAMI, submitted that Reserve Bank of India lacked jurisdiction to forbid dealings in cryptocurrencies. The blanket ban was based on an erroneous understanding that it was impossible to regulate cryptocurrencies, Sood submitted.

The petitioners had argued that the RBI's circular taking cryptocurrencies out of the banking channels would deplete the ability of law enforcement agencies to regulate illegal activities in the industry.

IAMAI had claimed the move of RBI had effectively banned legitimate business activity via the virtual currencies (VCs).

The RBI on April 6, 2018, had issued the circular that barred RBI-regulated entities from "providing any service in relation to virtual currencies, including those of transfer or receipt of money in accounts relating to the purchase or sale of virtual currencies".

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.