IN THE HIGH COURT OF
JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION)
W.P.NO. 12269 OF 2010
(Under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India)
1. Canara Bank Workers Union
(Regd.)
Rep.
by its General Secretary,
Chennai Office: 34/1 North Mada Street,
Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034
2. Sri R Radhakrishnan,
Son of Sri N.S.
Rajabathar
34 North Mada Street,
Nungambakkam
Chennai-600
034 …. Petitioners
-Versus-
1.
Union of India,
Rep.
by its Secretary,
Banking Division,
Ministry
of Finance,
New
Delhi – 110 001
2.
Indian Banks Association,
Rep. by its Chairman
World Trade Centre,
6th
Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai
- 400005
3. Canara Bank
Rep. by its Chairman & Managing
Director
Head Office
112, J C Road
Bangalore-560 002
4. All India Bank Employees’ Association
(AIBEA),
Rep. by its General Secretary,
Singapore
Plaza
164, Linghi Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001
5. National Confederation of Bank Employees
(NCBE),
Rep. by its General Secretary,
C/o State Bank of India-L H O, 3rd
Floor
Bhadra, Lal Dharwaja
Ahmedabad-380 001
6. Bank Employees’ Federation of India
(BEFI),
Rep. by its General Secretary,
Naresh Paul Centre
53
Radha Bazar Lane(First Floor)
Kolkota- 700 001
7. Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation
(INBEF),
Rep. by its General Secretary,
Bajaj Bhawan-I Floor
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021
8. National Organisation of Bank Workers’
(NOBW),
Rep. by its General Secretary
Ram Naresh Bhawan, Tilak Gali
Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj
New Delhi-110 055
… Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF R. RADHAKRISHNAN
I, R. Radhakrishnan, son of N.S. Rajabathar, Hindu, aged
about 53 years, residing at No.34, North Mada Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai –
600 034, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1.
I am the 2nd
Petitioner in the above Writ Petition and as such I am well acquainted with the
facts of the case.
2.
I submit that the Petitioners are filing this
Writ Petition praying for the issue of a WRIT OF CERTIRARIFIED MANDAMUS calling
for the records relating to Clause 32 of 9th Bipartite Wage
Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated
27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses requires contributory provident
fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised
pay payable for the month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund and
quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adhere to
the clause 3 of Minutes of the discussion held on 27.11.2009 between IBA
representing the Management of Banks which are parties to the Bipartite
Settlement and five workmen unions viz. AIBEA, NCBE, BEFI, INBEF and NOBW with
regard sharing the additional cost of pension on account of wage revision in
excess of statutory contribution of 10% of pay and pass such other order or
direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
the case and render justice.
3.
I submit that the 1st Petitioner
is Canara Bank Workers’ Union, a registered
trade union of the employees of Canara Bank, with Registration No.NGP/45 dated
24th November, 1965 with its membership spread in various states
throughout the country, and is not affiliated to any of the Respondent Unions
which have signed the present impugned settlements. The list of members of the 1st
Petitioner is enclosed herewith as Annexure to the Writ Petition.
4.
I submit that I am a member of the Managing
Committee of Canara Bank Workers’ Union (Regd.)
and also an affected workman and presently working at Canara Bank, A R M
Branch, Chennai.
5.
I submit that the 2nd Respondent is
a body representing managements of all Public and Private Sector Banks who are
its members and is mandated by these Banks to negotiate and enter into a
settlement with all the apex employees / officers Unions operating in various
Banks. That, the terms and conditions of services of employees of Banks are
governed by the provisions of Sastry Award and Desai Award as modified by
various Bipartite Settlements entered in to by the Indian Banks Association and
various apex unions, including Pension Scheme of the Bank Employees.
6.
I submit that, in Para
414 of the Sastry Award, the Hon’ble Tribunal has clearly observed that:
“We have considered
this matter very carefully. We find from the statement of accounts filed by the
Bank in relation to this Fund that the apprehensions of the Bank on this part
are not wholly justified. The position both in respect of its general profits
as well as the earnings out of this Pension and Guarantee Fund is such that for
some years to come the absence of employees’ contributions would not really
create any difficulty for the Bank.The Bank also pointed out that contributory
pension funds are not unknown in other countries and referred us to some institutions
which provide for such contributory funds. This is not doubt true; but
generally speaking a pension ought really to be independent, if possible, of
any contributions from the employees. On a rough calculation, it appears that
for 3 or 4 years after retirement the members’ own contributions generally
suffice for payment of pension under the rules of this Fund. It is only
thereafter that the general fund contributes towards employees’ pension fund.
In other words, there is really no pension earned by the employees from the
Bank’s fund during the first 3 or 4 years. Agreeing with the view of Shri Gupta
and also of the Sen Tribunal we are of opinion that the employees contributions
should be stopped.”
A Photocopy of the Para
414 of the Sastry Award is enclosed in the Typed Set of papers.
7.
I submit that from time to time the Indian
Banks Association and various apex unions of the Bank employees(listed herein
as Respondents No. 4 to 8) enter into Bi Partite Settlements in respect of
terms and conditions of Services including pension scheme for Bank Employees.
8.
I submit that for the first time in the year
1993 the Indian Banks Association and various apex unions of the Bank Employees
entered into a settlement on 29.10.1993 (hereinafter referred as Pension
Settlement dated 29.10.1993) in respect of the Pension Scheme. Here it is
important to highlight that prior to 1993 there was no general scheme of
Pension for Bank Employees and there was no Pension Agreement in Banks. In the
Banks there was only Contributory Provident Fund Scheme in which The Banks’ and
Employees made contributions equally at effective rate i.e. 8.33% or 10%.
9.
I submit that in the Pension Settlement dated
29.10.1993 in Cl 2.ii it was provided that the Pension Fund will be constituted
by transferring Bank’s Contribution to the Provident Fund Account along with
accrued interest there on to the Pension Fund and there was no provision that
the employees shall have to pay any amount other than the one as provided in Clause
2.ii. A copy of the Pension Settlement dated 29.10.1993 is enclosed in the
Typed Set of papers.
10.
I submit that after the Pension Settlement
dated 29.10.1993 the Govt. of India issued a Notification and thereafter all
the member Banks of the 2nd Respondent, Indian Banks Association
published Pension Regulations for its employees, after consultation with the
Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government,
which is known as Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995, thereby making
these pension regulations statutory in nature.
11.
I submit that the Chapter 3 of the aforesaid
Regulations provide for provisions for Composition of the Pension Fund wherein
Regulation 7 provides as under:
“The Fund shall consist of the following,
namely:-
a) the contribution by the Bank at the rate
of ten per cent per month of the pay of the employee;
b) the accumulated contributions of the bank
to the Provident Fund and interest accrued thereon up to the date of such
transfer in respect of the employees;
c) the amount consisting of contributions of
the Bank along with interest refunded by the employees who had retired before
the notified date but who opt for pension in accordance with the provisions
contained in these regulations;
d) the investment in annuities or securities
purchased out of the moneys of the Fund and interest thereon;
e) amount of any capital gains arising from
the capital assets of the Fund;
f) the additional annual contribution made by
the Bank in accordance with the provisions contained in regulation 11 of these
regulations;
g) any income from investments of the amounts
credited to the Fund;
h) the amount consisting of contribution of
the bank along with interest refunded by the family of the deceased employee.”
A
copy of the relevant pages of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations 1995 is
enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.
12.
I submit that from a perusal of the
Regulation 7 of the Bank Employees’ Pension Regulation it is clear that there
is no provision for contribution of any amount by the employees, other than The
Banks’ Contribution to P.F. Account along with accrued interest thereon.
13.
I submit that Regulation 11 of the said
Chapter III that provides for Actuarial Investigation of the Fund clearly
states that:
“The
Bank shall cause an investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial
condition of the Fund every financial year, on the 31st day of
March, and make such additional annual contributions to the Funds as may be
required to secure payment of benefits under these regulations. Provided that the Bank shall cause an
investigation to be made by an Actuary into the financial condition of the
Fund, as on the 31st day of March immediately following the
financial year in which the Fund is constituted.”
14.
I submit that from a perusal of the above Regulation
11 it is clear that it is for the individual member banks to cause an
investigation to be made by an actuary into the financial condition of the fund
every financial year, on the 31st day of March, and make such
additional annual contributions to the pension fund as may be required to
secure payment of benefits under these regulations. This regulation also does
not envisage any contribution from the employees towards the pension fund and
the entire responsibility of ensuring adequacy of funds solely rests on the
individual banks.
15.
I submit that in pursuance of the Pension
Settlement dated 29.10.1993 and the Pension Regulations 1995 a number of
employees opted for Pension and they became members of the Pension Scheme and
they had to surrender only the Banks’ Contribution to the Provident Fund
Account along with Interest accrued thereon, to the Pension Fund. As such the
employees who opted for Pension in the year 1993 and 1995, no amount other than
the Banks’ Contribution to P.F. Account along with accrued Interest has been
charged.
16.
I submit that in terms of clause 22(4) (b) of
the said pension regulations 1995, any interruption in the service of an
employee due to participation in strike shall entitle forfeiture of his entire
past service and shall not qualify for pensionary benefits. As a result of this penal clause many of the
employees did not opt for Pension. However the said penal clause was ultimately
removed as per the decision of Government of India, communicated to member
banks by the 2nd Respondent in the year 1998.
17.
I submit that subsequent to the introduction
of Pension Regulations, the bank employees had wage revisions during the years 1995
(6BPS), 2000(7 BPS) & 2005(8BPS) by way of bipartite settlements. During
the 7th Bipartite Settlement of the year 2000 , the 2nd Respondent
imposed that a share of the wage revision increase to be passed on to all the
employees to augment the pension fund, and the same was agreed to by the Apex
Unions, even though the Pension Regulations do not envisage any contribution by
the employees.
18.
I submit that during the 7th Bi-partite
settlement, the increased cost of pension was worked out at 26.5%. After
reducing the statutory contribution of 10% by the banks, the balance of 16.5% was
shared between the employees and the Banks @ 8.25% + 8.25% (Fifty/Fifty). Thus
from out of the wage revision offered, this pension fund gap was first filled,
and the balance amount was offered as revised wages to the employees. It is pertinent to note here that even the PF
optees had to forego a portion of their wage revision for building up this
pension fund, as a result of the above act of the 2nd Respondent.
19.
I submit that similarly in the 8th
Bi-partite Settlement of 2005, the increased cost of pension of 30.5% was
shared as 10% (statutory contribution), 9.25% by the employees and 11.25% by
the banks. (Shared at 45:55) and thus it can bee seen that all the employees
irrespective of their option had contributed to the increased cost of pension.
20.
I submit that after deletion of the penal
clause on strike and because of the fact that all employees including the PF
optees were forced to contribute to the Pension fund, all the employees who did
not opt for Pension earlier and various unions raised a demand for extending 2nd
option to such employees, as similar options were extended to the employees of
Reserve Bank of India in the year 2000. Thereafter on 27.11.2009 the Indian
Banks Association and the Respondent unions (under a common platform styled as
United Forum of Bank Unions, also called as UFBU) have mutually agreed in respect of extending another option (2nd
Option) to join the Pension Scheme to the leftover Bank employees. The Record Note of Discussions signed on the
same day specifically provides under Point 3 (b) that 30% of the identified gap
in the Pension Fund is agreed to be shared by all the employees who are
in service of the Banks as on the date of the Memorandum of Settlement to be
signed”. A copy of the Minutes of Discussions and Record Note of Discussions
dated 27. 11. 2009 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.
21.
I submit that thereafter on date 27.4.2010 the
2nd Respondent and different apex unions of the UFBU entered in to a
Pension Settlement under Provisions of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Act
1947 in respect of extending 2nd option of Pension to those
employees who did not opt for Pension in the year 1993/1995 and had thus
continued to remain a member of contributory Provident Fund Scheme. A copy of
the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.
22.
I submit that Clause 1 & 2 of the terms
of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 provides the relevant provision for
opting Pension in respect of working employees as on the date of the settlement
Relevant provision of the terms of settlement is quoted below:
(1)
“All
workmen employees are in the service of the bank as on the date of this
Settlement who exercise option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of this
Settlement will contribute from their arrears on account of wage
revision in terms of the Settlement between the parties dated 27th
April 2010 an amount of Rs. 878 crores towards their share in the amount of Rs.
1800 crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding gap of Rs.
6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised
pay for the month of November 2007, for individual workmen employees.”
(2)
“Another
option for joining the existing Pension Scheme shall be extended to those
employees who:-
(1)
(a)
were in the service of the bank prior to 29th September 1995 in case
of Nationalized Banks / 26th March 1996 in case of Associate Banks
of State Bank of India
and continue in the service of the bank on the date of this Settlement;
(b) exercise an
option in writing within 60 days from the date of offer, to become a member of
the Pension Fund and
(c) authorize the Trust of the
Provident Fund of the bank to transfer
the entire contribution of the bank along with interest accrued thereon
to the credit of the Pension Fund.
23.
I submit that thereafter on the same day i.e.
on 27.4.2010 the 2nd Respondent and different apex unions have
entered in to another settlement hereinafter referred as 9th Bipartite
Settlement (9th B.P.S.) and Cl.32 of the 9th B.P.S.
provides the provision of another option for Pension. The Cl.32 of 9th
B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 runs as under:
“32. Another Option
for Pension (in Banks other than State Bank of India) Workmen employees in the
service of the bank as on 27th April 2010 and who exercise their
option to join the Pension Scheme in terms of the Settlement dated 27th
April 2010 will contribute from their arrears on account of wage revision in
terms of this Settlement an amount of Rs.878 crores towards their share in the
amount of Rs.1800 crores offered by UFBU towards 30% of the estimated funding
gap of Rs.6000 crores. The said amount is worked out @ 2.8 times of the revised
pay payable for the month of November 2007.”
A copy of the 9th B.P.S. dated
27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of papers.
24.
I submit that, in the Pension Settlement
dated 27.4.2010 and in the 9th B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 it has been
provided that those employees who want to opt to join Pension Scheme now, shall
have to pay 2.8 times of the revised pay as on November 2007 from the arrears
payable to them on account of 9th B.P.S., additionally apart from
Banks’ contribution to P.F. account along with interest accrued thereon. I
submit that the above Clause 32 of the 9th Bi-partite Wage Settlement
dated 27.04.2010 and Clause (1) of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar
as the said clauses requires contributory provident fund optees to become
pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of the revised pay payable for the
month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension Fund is liable to the quashed for
the following among other grounds.
G R O U N D S
A.
In the previous Pension Settlement dated
29.10.1993 and Pension Regulations 1995 there was provision only for transfer
of Banks’ Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with Accrued Interest
and there was not any provision for payment or transfer of any other additional
amount.
B.
While in the earlier 7th and 8th
Bipartite Settlements, all the employees (both pension and PF optees) have
contributed to the funding gap in the Pension fund, in the present settlement
the entire load has now been placed only on those employees who want to opt for
pension, while the existing pension optees are left free. I submit that the
above contemplated recovery exclusively from the present PF optee’s who now
wish to join the Pension Fund amounts to discrimination and is violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
C.
Even assuming that no further option is given
for the Pension, still there would have been a shortfall/gap in the Pension
Fund as it had in the past and that no proposal has been provided by the 2nd
Respondent to bridge that gap by recovering exclusively from the existing
Pension optees.
D.
That, here it is submitted that by virtue of
the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and the 9th B.P.S. dated
27.4.2010 those employees who shall opt for Pension Scheme now shall have to
transfer a huge amount like Rs.60,000 to Rs. 1.50 lacks according to the
category and designation from the arrears payable on Wage Revision said to take
effect on account of 9th B.P.S. w.e.f. 1.11.2007 to 30.4.2010.
E.
That, if, for the purpose of comparison, we
take the case of two identical employees in the same cadre with the same of
date of joining and retirement and one of whom is a Pension optee and the other
one a PF optee, the PF optee will have to shell out an additional amount of
anywhere between Rs,60000/- and Rs.100000/- to join the Pension fund now,
though ultimately both of them will be drawing the same of amount of Pension at
their retirement. If giving option on different dates is the only reason for
this disparity then it is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice.
F.
That, whatever the present pension optees
have so far contributed to the Pension fund, the same has been matched by the
PF optees as well and therefore loading the entire burden on the PF optees who now
wish to join the Pension fund is wholly unjust, arbitrary and
discriminatory
G.
That, insertion of provision for transfer of
2.8 times of Revised Pay as on November 2007 to the Pension Fund in the Pension
Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Cl.32 of the 9th B.P.S. dated
27.4.2010 is wholly illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the
Constitution of India.
H.
That, here it is pertinent to highlight that Respondent
No.7, Indian National Bank Employees’ Federation (A Banking Wing of INTUC) has
lodged protest vide its General Secretary’s Letter dated 27.4.2010 and has
signed the 9th B.P.S. under protest. A copy of the said letter dated
27.4.2010 is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.
I.
It would not be out of place to mention that from
time to time the Reserve Bank of India and Indian Railways have
given fresh and 2nd option to join Pension Scheme to its employees
and there was no provision for transfer of any additional cost apart from
employers’ Contribution to Provident Fund Account along with accrued
interest. Especially in the case of
Railways, as a result of various improvements in the service conditions or
implementation of the Pay Commission’s recommendations etc. fresh options were
again allowed to the staff to join the pension scheme as these improvements had
bearing on the pensionary benefits. In all 12 such options were allowed. A copy
of the Master Circular issued by the Indian Railways with regard to giving
fresh option is enclosed in the Typed Set of Papers.
J.
The Petitioners have been advised to state
that the provision of transfer of additional amount to the tune of 2.8 times of
the Revised Pay as on November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to the Provident
Fund Account with Accrued Interest is not envisaged under the Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulations 1995 and is against the provisions of Article 309 and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I submit that the Petitioners have
been advised to state that if the operation of the provisions for transfer of
2.8 times of Revised Pay as on November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to
the Provident Fund Account along with accrued interest as embodied in Clause 1
and 2 of the Pension Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause 32 of the 9th
B.P.S. dated 27.4.2010 is not quashed then a large number of employees of the
Bank shall be driven out and dissuaded to exercise the option and they shall
suffer an irreparable loss and injury and the same would be by way of penalty for
not opting earlier.
K.
It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in so many cases that the Pension is
neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the
Employer and it is a vested right of the Employees.
L.
The action of the 2nd Respondent
is wholly illegal, unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory and is totally contrary
to the earlier agreed terms of sharing by al the employees, as per the minutes
of the discussions recorded on 27.11.2009.
M.
The Petitioners have been advised to state
that by virtue of imposing the provision regarding transfer of 2.8 times of
revised Pay of November 2007 apart from Banks’ Contribution to Provident Fund
Account along with Accrued Interest from the arrears payable to employees on Wage
Revision is punitive and shall dissuade them from opting for Pension Scheme and
this is against the Social Security measures of the Government.
N.
The Petitioners have been advised to state
that in view of the various amendments and modifications effected to the Bank
(Employees) Pension Regulations 1995, “especially removal of the deterrent
penal clause on strike”, that the 2nd Respondent should have given
one more option to the employees for joining the Pension Scheme (as was done in
the case of RBI and the Railways), without imposing any preconditions, which
act alone would have served the ends of natural justice.
O.
The Petitioners have been advised to state
that by virtue of Regulation 7 and Regulation 11 of the Bank (Employees)
Pension Regulations 1995 that there is absolutely no scope for the 2nd
Respondent to recover any amount except the Bank’s contribution of PF and
interest accrued thereon, and whatever
the sum of money recovered earlier from the wage revision of individual
employees in the name of bridging the Pension fund gap is highly illegal and
therefore such amounts so deducted by the member banks of the 2nd Respondent have to be
refunded to all such employees.
25.
I submit that by virtue of the impugned
clause 32 of the 9th Bi-partite Settlement dated 27.04.2010
requiring the present contributory provident fund optees to contribute at 2.8
times of revised pay as of November, 2007 to the Pension Fund, the members of
the Petitioner Union are now required to contribute nearly Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-
from out of the wage-revision arrears and the same has been withheld by the 3rd
Respondent Bank in order to enable the
respective members to exercise their option.
In view of the various grounds stated above, it is prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of operation of Clause 32 of
9th Bipartite Wage Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1) of
Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses requires contributory
provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8 times of
the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 onwards to the Pension
Fund pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.
26.
I submit that if the members of the 1st
Petitioner Union wants to exercise option to pension fund, then they have to
agree for contributing at 2.8 times of revised pay as of November, 2007 as
otherwise their option will not be processed.
As stated earlier, as per the Minutes of Discussion held on 27.11.2009
between the Respondents 2 to 7, it was agreed that the additional cost of
pension on account of wage revision in excess of statutory contribution of 10%
of pay will be shared equally between management and employees and the share of
employees will be deducted from the wage increase. Thus, it can be seen that no
distinction was made between pension optees and CPF optees with regard to the
contribution payable to the pension fund.
However, in the impugned settlements the pension optees have been left
out from making any contribution to the pension fund and only CPF optees are
made liable to pay to the pension fund.
In the event of the members of the 1st Petitioner Union
refuses to contribute to the Pension Fund the Respondent Bank may not accept
the option exercised by the CPF optees to become a pension optee. In such circumstances, it is just and
necessary that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue ad interim direction
directing the Respondent Bank to accept the option exercised by the members of
the 1st Petitioner Union without insisting on contribution at 2.8
times of revised pay as of November, 2007
pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and thus render justice.
27.
I submit that, the Petitioners have not filed
any other Writ Petition before this Hon’ble
Court for the present relief and this is the first
writ petition.
For
the foregoing among other reasons, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIRARIFIED MANDAMUS or any other
appropriate writ, order or Direction calling for the records relating to Clause
32 of 9th Bipartite Wage Settlement dated 27.4.2010 and Clause (1)
of Pension Settlement dated 27.04.2010 only insofar as the said clauses require
contributory provident fund optees to become pension optees upon contributing 2.8
times of the revised pay payable for the month of November 2007 to the Pension Fund and quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adhere to the clause 3 of
Minutes of the discussion held on 27.11.2009 between IBA representing the
Management of Banks which are parties to the Bipartite Settlement and five
workmen unions viz. AIBEA, NCBE, BEFI, INBEF and NOBW with regard to sharing
the additional cost of pension on account of wage revision in excess of statutory
contribution of 10% of pay and pass such other order or direction as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
render justice.
Solemnly affirmed and signed his )
Name in my presence at Chennai )
On this the day of June, 2010 ) BEFORE ME
Page No:
Corrections: Nil ADVOCATE, CHENNAI
