9th bipartite settlement for bankers.

It is a historical settlement because it gives 2ND option for pension. First option was given in 1995-96 with an anti-employees clause in it. The clause says: If any pension optee participates in any strike and salary is cut and a break in service is awarded his/her write to get pension would vanish. For this clause and some other factors relevant to that period, a major portion of bank employees did not opt for pension. Since then, every bipartite settlement made provision for pension fund and every employee, pension optees and non optees has been contributing towards pension fund. We knew that we, non optees would never get pension, still then we have been contributing towards our fellow bankers pension. Now that another option is given and for that contribution is required, our pension optee friends are unhappy to such an extend that some of them are ready to go to the court even. If they go to the court we would simply ask for the return of of our contributions already given towards our pension optee friends' future pension. In that case they, who have given option already, will not be given pension. Shall we do that?