Senior Vice President, AIBOC, Delhi, has asked UFBU to answer some important questions related to strike deferment.
Bank of India Officers’ Association, Delhi Unit said – On behalf of the entire membership of Bank of India Officers’ Association, Delhi Unit, we write not merely to register a protest but to place on record our outrage at the manner in which the leadership has treated the sacrifices of the officers it claims to represent. The overnight withdrawal of the three-day strike scheduled for 28-30 September 2026, and the ambiguity now clouding the indefinite strike notified for 26th October 2026, has been communicated to us as though it were a routine administrative update. It is a betrayal of a mandate that members gave with their eyes open, at real personal and financial cost.
Officers, including young Probationary Officers, had joined the strike. In the dead of night and on the strength of a document described in your own circulars as a “proposed” MOU, the fight is being stood down; this is an insult to that sacrifice and to the memory of those we lost.
The association said that it does not accept vague reassurance in place of accountability. Association has asked UFBU to answer, in writing and without evasion, the following:
1. Has the MOU actually been signed?
UFBU circular speaks only of a “proposed” MOU. If no binding document exists, on what basis was a fully mobilized strike called off? We demand the signed text, the list of signatories, and the minutes of the meeting be circulated to every constituent unit without further delay.
2. Who authorized this decision, and who was consulted?
Was any State or Zonal unit consulted before this reversal, or were the Federation, AIBOC’s own constituents, and the rank and file simply presented with a fait accompli on the eve of the strike? Leadership that negotiates the fate of its members without consulting those members has forfeited the right to call itself representative.
3. Why does the settlement bypass the Department of Financial Services?
Five-day banking has been a recommended, pending reform since the Joint Note of March 2024 – over 1,000 days of inaction. An understanding with the IBA alone, with no DFS or Government party to it and no enforceability whatsoever, is not a settlement. It is a delay dressed up as a victory. We reject it as such.
4. Where is the timeline?
“At the earliest” and “expeditiously” are not commitments; they are the same empty language that has been used to stall five-day banking, the NPS-to-OPS transition, pension updation and regulated working hours for years. Association demands dated, monitorable deadlines for every one of these issues, not another open-ended promise.
5. Why has an artificial divide been created within the workforce?
The unilateral rollout of the Performance Linked Incentive to Scale IV officers and above, while Scale I to III officers and workmen are left waiting on a promised “relativity,” has already fractured solidarity on the ground. Association holds this leadership responsible for allowing that division to occur in the first place.
6. Why is a single day’s wage treated as adequate compensation?
Officers who were compelled to report for duty on a holiday, at the cost of family time and personal safety, are being offered one day’s wage. This disparity is not an oversight; it is a signal of how lightly officers’ sacrifices are regarded at the negotiating table.
7. Who is accountable for the lives lost during this mobilisation?
This is not a rhetorical question. Association demands to know what concrete steps – not condolences – have been taken to secure justice, dignity, and long-term financial security for the families of our colleagues who did not return home. Silence on this point will not be accepted.
8. What happens if these commitments are not honoured?
Association demands an unambiguous, written undertaking that the agitational programme, including the strike scheduled for 26 October 2026, will be automatically revived, without requiring fresh mobilisation or fresh sacrifice from the membership, if the timelines now claimed are not met.
Association has held the AIBOC leadership directly responsible for the anger, disillusionment, and erosion of trust this deferment has caused among the members. Association has demanded a full, written, and specific response to every question raised above within three days of receipt of this letter.
Loading Viewer…
