Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary told Parliament that the legitimate concerns of existing IDBI Bank employees and other stakeholders have been duly addressed through specific provisions incorporated in the Share Purchase Agreement governing the bank’s proposed disinvestment.
Chaudhary made the statement in reply to an un‑starred question raised in the Lok Sabha by MP Thamizhachi Thangapandian. The question sought an update on the status of the bank’s privatisation, asked whether the government had undertaken any assessment of the impact on bank officers, and inquired if any discussions had been planned with employees or their representatives.
According to the minister, the disinvestment process began with the publication of a Preliminary Information Memorandum on 7 October 2022, inviting expressions of interest (EoI) from potential bidders. The memorandum triggered the receipt of multiple EoIs, all of which are now undergoing due‑diligence. That due‑diligence is proceeding only after security clearance by the Ministry of Home Affairs and a “fit and proper” evaluation by the Reserve Bank of India.
The minister’s response also highlighted that the Share Purchase Agreement contains clauses designed to safeguard employee interests, though the exact nature of those clauses was not disclosed in the parliamentary reply.
Employee forum disputes government’s claim
The United Forum of IDBI Officers and Employees, which represents roughly 11,900 officers and 400 work‑men employees, publicly rejected the government’s narrative. The forum described a statement by Arunish Chawla, Secretary of the Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM), which claimed that the department had discussed the disinvestment with employee associations, as a “big lie.”
In a press release, the United Forum said it was never consulted while the draft Share Purchase Agreement was being prepared or finalised, and that no draft was ever shared with its members. The forum’s representatives characterised the alleged discussion as a fabrication, asserting that the department’s claim was without basis.
Protests, strikes and conciliation attempts
Leaders of the United Forum, including Convenor Devidas Tuljapurkar and Joint Convenors Vithal Koteswara Rao and Ratnakar Wankhade, detailed a series of protests undertaken to oppose the sale of IDBI Bank to private or foreign entities. They reported organising seven dharnas at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, submitting a memorandum to Secretary Chawla opposing the sale on grounds that it would run counter to national interests and employee welfare.
The forum also coordinated a one‑day nationwide strike on 11 August 2025, describing it as a collective expression of dissent. Following the strike, a series of conciliation meetings were held before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) in Mumbai during 2025 and 2026. In each meeting, DIPAM officials allegedly reiterated that the strategic disinvestment was a policy decision of the Government of India and a confidential process, declining to engage directly with the employee representatives.
In a separate communication dated the previous month, a senior DIPAM official wrote to the Assistant Labour Commissioner‑C (III), Mumbai, emphasizing that the disinvestment is a confidential transaction containing price‑sensitive information comparable to any listed‑company sale. The official warned that any public disclosure of the terms would breach confidentiality regulations and jeopardise the entire bidding process.
DIPAM further characterised the employee forum’s recourse to the conciliation mechanism as an instance of “forum‑shopping,” noting that a similar plea is pending before the Supreme Court and another before the Mumbai High Court. The department indicated that judicial clarification on the matter is still awaited.
While the finance ministry maintains that employee concerns have been incorporated into the transaction framework, the United Forum continues to challenge the adequacy of those measures, insisting that it was excluded from critical discussions and that the disinvestment threatens both staff security and broader national interests.
The dispute remains unresolved as the government proceeds with the confidentiality‑bound bidding process, and employee groups persist in seeking legal and public avenues to voice their opposition.
Be First to Comment