1. In both these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who manufacture Millboard by sundry process, have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order for quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 2nd July, 1979 (Annexure 'D' to the petition) issued by the Government of Gujarat in its Labour, Social Welfare and Tribal Development Department, in exercise of powers conferred on it by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 and Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of employees employed in the scheduled employment known 'as Employment in any Pulp and Paper or Board Manufactory' with effect from 15th July, 1979.

2. As both these petitions involve common question of facts and law, with the consent of the learned Advocates, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. The facts giving rise to the present petition may now be stated: The petitioner manufacture Mill-board by sun-dry process. According to the petitioners, manufacture of Mill-board by sun-dry process is very different from paper manufacturing by automatic process. The petitioners have averred in the petitions that the Board manufactories are of two types: (i) Mill-board manufactory run by manual process (by sundry process), which are by their very nature seasonal, and (ii) Board manufactory run with fully automatic process carried out mechanically. The petitioners have described the manufacturing process in detail and have stated that the Industries run by the petitioners have widely different characteristics from the pulp and paper industry and also the board manufacturing industry by automatic process in the matter of nature of employment and the work involved in the employment. According to the petitioners, the Mill- board Industry run by sun-dry process occupy lowest rung of the ladder with respect to technology, investment, organisation and is working with the highest labour production ratio and is seasonal and classified as small scale industry

4. The Dominion Parliament has enacted the Act called as 'Minimum Wages Act', 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for fixing minimum rates of wages in certain employments. Section 4 of the Act lays down what the minimum rate of wages should consist of Section 5 sets out the procedure for fixing or revising minimum wages. Section 9 of the Act provides for the composition of the Committee. Section 27 of the Act confers powers on the Government to add an employment in the Schedule to the Act. The Government of Gujarat in the purported exercise of the said power, on 2nd July, 1976 issued notification, whereby it added the following employment in the schedule, namely, 'Employment in any pulp and paper or board manufactory'. This was added with effect from 1st July, 1976. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Government of Gujarat by its Resolution, Labour, Social Welfare and Tribal Development Department dated 22nd March, 1977 appointed a Committee to hold inquiry and to advise the Government in the matter of fixation of minimum wages in respect of employment in any pulp and paper or board manufactory in the State of Gujarat. The Committee appointed by the Government made necessary inquiry and submitted its report to the Government of Gujarat. The Government of Gujarat, after considering the advice of the said Committee, decided to fix the minimum rates of wages in respect of the said scheduled employment and in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 5 and Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act issued a Notification dated 2nd July, 1979 fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of employees employed in said scheduled employment with effect from 15th July, 1979. The petitioners have challenged the above referred notification in the present petitions.

5. Mr. V.B. Patel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in the Board Manufacturing Industries, there are less than thousand employees and, therefore, the State Government had no authority to issue notification fixing minimum rates of wages and, the Notification dated 2nd July, 1979 therefore should be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel referred to the provision of section 3(1-a) of the Act and submitted that as there are less than one thousand employees in the Board Manufacturing Industries, the Government could not have issued the notification fixing minimum rates of wages and, therefore, the said notification must be quashed. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to the averments made in Para 11 of the petition and submitted that the total employment in the Board manufacturing industries is less than 500 employees and, therefore, the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue notification fixing minimum rates of wages for the industries in question. The learned Counsel also submitted that the fact that the total employment in the' Industry is less than 500 employees was pointed out to the Chairman of the Minimum Wages Committee for the Pulp and Paper or Board Manufactory and, therefore, in view of this position, no notification could have been issued by the State Government fixing minimum rates of wages for the employees working in the Industry. As far as this submission is concerned, it would be profitable to quote section 3(1-a) of the Act, which reads as under:

"3(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but if at any time whether before or after the expiry of any time limit specified in Sub-section (1), the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to one thousand or more it snail fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in such employment within one year from the date on which it comes to such finding:

Provided that, where the State Government has for any reason not fixed the minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment within one year from the date on which it came to a finding as aforesaid in respect of such employment nothing contained in this sub-section shall after the commencement of the Minimum Wages (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1961 prevent the State Government from fixing the minimum rates of wages in respect of such employment even after the expiry of the said period of one year.

6. A bare reading of the provisions of section 3(1-a) of the Act makes it clear that the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment . Thus, in order to find out whether there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in the employment, one has to take into account the number of employees working in the scheduled employment as a whole and not any part of it. As stated earlier, the scheduled employment is employment in any pulp and paper or board manufactory. The petitioners have not averred in the petition that there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in the scheduled employment. What the petitioners have averred in this petition is that in the board manufactory, there are less than one thousand employees engaged in the State of Gujarat. However, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether in the whole State, less than one thousand employees are engaged in the Scheduled employment, part of the entry, cannot be taken into account. As is clear from the Notification, the Government had appointed a Committee to hold inquiries and to advise it, in the matter of fixation of minimum rates of wages in respect of the employment in any pulp and paper or board manufactory and after making necessary inquiries, the Committee submitted its report to the Government of Gujarat. A copy of the report of the Committee has been produced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader before the Court. The said report clearly shows that the total number of employees working in pulp and paper or board manufactory industry in the State of Gujarat is 3563. This report of the Committee, which has been accepted by the Government after due consideration, has not been challenged in this petition. Therefore, the report clearly shows that in the whole State, there are more than one thousand employees engaged in the employment in any pulp and paper or board manufactory and, therefore, the Government had power and authority to issue the Notification in question fixing minimum rates of wages for employees. In view of this, we do not find any substance in the first submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Notification requires to be quashed because in the whole State, less than one thousand employees are engaged in board manufactory industry.

7. Even otherwise from the provisions of section 3(1-a) of the Act it appears that it is an enabling provision and it provides that the appropriate Government may refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment. The said provision does not provide that the appropriate Government shall refrain from fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment. It is for the Government to fix minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State, less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment, but this enabling provision cannot be construed to mean that the State Government has no power to issue Notification fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled employment in which there are in the whole State less than one thousand employees engaged in such employment. It has not been shown on behalf of the petitioners as to why the word 'may' appearing in section 3(1-a) should be read as 'shall' and having regard to the nature of the scheme of the Act, we are not inclined to read the word 'may' as 'shall' so far as this provision is concerned. Second part of section 3(1-a) provides that if at any time whether before or after the expiry of any time limit specified in Sub-section (1), the appropriate Government comes to a finding after such number of employees in any scheduled employment in respect of which it has refrained from fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to one thousand or more it shall fix minimum rates of wages payable to employees in such employment within one year from the date on which it comes to such finding. Therefore, on reading section 3(1-a) as a whole, it becomes clear that if number of employees in any scheduled employment is more than one thousand, then the Government is obliged to issue Notification fixing minimum rates of wages for the employees. But, if the number of employees is less than one thousand, then the Government may or Government may not fix the minimum rates of wages for the employees in a given employment, but that does not mean that the Government has no power to issue Notification fixing minimum rates of wages in an employment if the number of employees is less than one thousand. In view of our this conclusion also, we do not find any substance in the first contention raised by Mt. Patel that the Notification in question is bad in law because in the whole State, there are less than one thousand employees engaged in the board manufacturing industry.

Even otherwise, in all, there are 15 petitioners. The petitioners have not given any break-up to show that the total employment in industry is less than five hundred in number. The petitioners have averred in the petition that there are approximately 18 Units of Mill-board manufactory by sundry process and that the total employment is less than five hundred employees, but, necessary particulars have not been supplied by the petitioners. In the representation dated July 5th, 1977, which was addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour & Secretary, Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for Pulp and Paper or Board Manufactory, it has been stated that the total employment of sun-dry process Millboard Manufacturing units of Gujarat State will be approximately 500. However, there also no particulars were supplied on behalf of the petitioners. In the representation dated September 19, 1977 addressed to Hon'ble the Minister for Labour, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar it has been stated on behalf of the petitioners that in the State of Gujarat, there are about 15 sun-dry process Millboard factories employing about 700 workers. Thus, the figures of the employees employed in the Mill-board factories as given by the petitioner is not constant and different figures have been mentioned by the petitioners from time to time. Therefore, there is no sufficient material on the basis of which a conclusion can be arrived at that in the Mill-board factories, there are less than one thousand employees in the whole State of Gujarat, Thus, for want of necessary particulars also, the first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners must fail.

8. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the Committee and the Advisory Board as also the State Government have overlooked the fact that more than 100% neutralization has been granted while fixing special allowance under the impugned Notification. It was submitted that full or cent per cent neutralization can be achieved if the increase in the costs of living is fully compensated so that the pay of the workers is not adversely affected, but granting of more than 100% of increase in the cost of living would be more than neutralization and would in effect give the workers the increased wage, which is not permissible under the law. Relying upon the statement at Annexure 'E' to the petition, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Rs. 0-15 ps. as prescribed per day or Rs. 3-90 ps. per month for the rise of every five points over the costs of living index number 260, works out to more than 1000/-neutralization in three categories of workers, namely, un-skilled, semi-skilled and Clerical-B and, therefore, that part of the Notification should be struck down being illegal. To substantiate the above referred submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India, rendered in the case of the Management of Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. G.S. Barot, reported in 1979 II LLJ 383. As against this, Miss Varma, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the neutralization sought to be achieved by granting special allowance under the impugned Notification is not more than 100%.

9. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel, it would be appropriate to have a close look at the Notification issued on 2nd July, 1979 fixing minimum rates of wages for the employees engaged in the employment in question. The said notification is in two parts. By the first part, wages for each category of employees are fixed taking the cost of living index number 260 as the basis. By the second part, a special allowance is also fixed, which is linked with the rise of every five points in the costs of living index number at the rate of Rs. 0-15 ps. and such a rise is to be made effective at the interval of six months. The first interval was stated to commence on or from 1st October, 1979. It cannot be gainsaid that this special allowance fixed for workmen engaged in the scheduled employment is fixed keeping in mind the inflationary trend with respect to prices of essential commodities. The effect of granting special allowance is that any rise in prices of essential commodities would give a corresponding rise to the cost of living index number and the rise in the special allowance fixed under the Notification has the purpose to neutralize. This trend of rise in prices of essential commodities, as stated earlier, Rs. 0-15 paise rise is fixed for every rise of five points in the costs of living index number.

9-A. The petitioners have produced at Annexure 'E' to the petition one statement showing the monetary value of wages fixed under the impugned Notification, in respect of five points in the costs of living index number keeping in mind the wages fixed on the basis of costs of living index number at 260. As per the said statement, in the case of unskilled, semi-skilled and clerical-B categories of employees, monetary value of wages payable to them for five points is mentioned to be Rs. 0-11.5 paise per day, Rs. 0-13.5 ps. per day and Rs. 3-8 ps. per month, respectively. The monthly rate in every rise of five points in the costs of living index number, as fixed in the Notification at Annexure-'D' to this petition, is Rs. 3-90 ps. From the statement Annexure-'E' to the petition, it transpires that the neutralization sought to be achieved in the three categories of workmen is to the tune of 130.43%, 111.82% and 101.29% respectively. The neutralization is thus, more than 100%.

10. We do not find any substance in the submissions of Miss Varma, learned Advocate for the respondents that the neutralization is not to the tune of 100% and the reason is quite simple. The respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply in this matter. The respondents have not controverted the correctness of the figures shown in the statement at Annexure 'E' to the petition. In view of this, there is no reason for us not to accept the correctness of the figures stated in the statement at Annexure 'E' to this petition. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the calculation shown thereunder to be correct and true.

11. As mentioned hereinabove, the neutralization sought to be achieved, is more than 100% in the categories of unskilled, semiskilled and clerical-B employees. In the case of the Management of Shri Chalthan. Vibhag Khand Udyog Sahakari Mandali Ltd. v. G.S. Barot, Member, Industrial Court, Gujarat reported in 1979 II LLJ 383 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had occasion to consider the validity of an award passed by the Industrial Court, by which the graduated dearness allowance of the unskilled employees was increased. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though 100% neutralization is not advisable as it will lead to inflation, full neutralization may be permissible only in the case of lowest class of employees. It has been further held in the said case that the purpose of grant of dearness allowance is to neutralize the increase in the costs of living due to rise in price and full or cent per cent neutralization can be achieved if the increase, in the cost of living is fully compensated so that the pay of the worker is not adversely affected. It is also held that an award of more than 100% of an increase in the costs of living would be more than neutralization and would in effect give the worker an increased wage and the result would be the worker would be getting an increased wage packet whenever there is a price rise, a result which would not have been envisaged in making provision for grant of dearness allowance. In view of the above referred ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that the neutralization sought to be achieved in the three categories of employees, namely, unskilled, semi skilled and clerical-B which is more than 100% is clearly not permissible in law and the part fixing rate of Rs. 0-15 ps. per day or Rs. 3-90 ps. per month as special allowance with every rise of five points in the costs of living index number 260 in the Notification at Annexure-'D' to the petition, is not in accordance with law.

12. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and peculiar circumstances, we are of the view that it is not necessary for us to strike down the impugned notification at Annexure 'D' to the petition on the ground that it is bad in law. It may be noted that the notification in question is a beneficial piece of work under the benevolent piece of legislation and it is bound to affect adversely the workmen engaged in the industries if it is struck down. The neutralization can be said to be marginally higher than 100% permissible under the law only in three categories of employees. It could be the result of a mistake in arithmetical calculation. Again, such neutralization of more than 100% which is permissible under the law, is with respect to only lowly paid workmen engaged in the scheduled employment in question. By the interim order passed by this Court on 26th December, 1979 in these petitions, the petitioners were directed to pay to their workman fifty per cent of special allowance fixed under the notification in question. If grant of special allowance is declared to be bad in law, these workmen might have to refund the amount of special allowance received by them. Again, the position is not free from doubt whether any fresh notification giving retrospective effect can be issued by the Government under Section 3 of the Act in place of the impugned notification, which is at Annexure D to the petition. The impugned notification was issued on 2nd July, 1976 whereas these petitions were admitted on 17th December, 1979 and the situation has become quite precarious in view of efflux of more than 12 years from the date of issuance of the notification and filing of the petitions. From the statement at Annexure 'E' produced by the petitioners alongwith the petition, it becomes clear that even 100% neutralization is not sought to be achieved in three categories of employees, namely, skilled, highly skilled and clerical-A. In view of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the Government is entitled to review the minimum rates of wages fixed by it and to revise them and by this time, revision of minimum wages must have taken place so far as the employees employed in the scheduled employment in question are concerned. It would, therefore, be in the fitnes of things not to upset the position as prevailed on the implementation of the said notification. It is a settled principle of law that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature and in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties.

13. In the case of Balvantrai Chimanlal Trivedi, Manager, Raipur Mfg. Co. Ltd., Ahmedabad v. M.N. Nagrashna and Ors. reported in 1959-II Lab LJ 837 certain employees of appellant-Mill had made an application to the authority under the Payment of Wages Act aiming that they were entitled to be paid according to a particular scale. The Authority held that the folders were entitled to the scale, rejecting the objection of the appellant to its jurisdiction to entertain such application. The appellant then filed a writ petition, but that was summarily dismissed by the High Court. The appellant, therefore, appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by special leave and intended that the Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and also disputed its decision on merits. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the view of the Authority on merits was correct and as regards the other contention, it was of the opinion that there was some force in the contention regarding jurisdiction. Following the ratio laid down in the case of A.M Allison & H.P Brigg v. B.L Sen & Others 1957-I Lab LJ 472 Supreme Court of India held that the justice of the case did not require any interference in the circumstances and refused to interfere with the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant even though it had found that there was some force in the contention of the appellant regarding jurisdiction of the authority under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act to entertain the application filed by the respondents therein.

14. In the case of Alang Marine Pvt. Ltd., Bhavnagar v. Gujarat Maritime Board and Ors. reported in 1991(2) GLR 1321, the appellant Alang Marine Pvt. Ltd., an unsuccessful tenderer for a job of construction and supply of steel hull Twin Self Propelled and self Hopper Grab Dredger for the port of Porbandar, had challenged the acceptance of the said tender by the respondents in favour of respondents No. 5 therein. The Division Bench has in an appeal held that the ultimate decision made in favour of the respondent No. 5 had not resulted in a material failure of justice and interference by the Writ Court for infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such infraction has not resulted in injustice, is not a matter of course. While dismissing the Appeal, it has been held as under:

"In this connection, reference may be made to the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.M. Allison and Anr. v. B.L. Sen and Ors. reported in 1957-I Lab LJ 472. The jurisdiction exercised by the writ Court is an equitable jurisdiction and if, ultimately, by the impugned decision, there has not been any material injustice, the writ Court may be well justified in refusing to interfere simply because there has been some infraction of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that selection of respondent No. 5 for the contract in question is otherwise justified and even if the Board is directed to consider the cases of tenders afresh on the basis of the materials before it and on critical evaluation of the tenderers, the Board can justly accept the tender of Respondent No. 5 for the reasons indicated earlier. It may be noted here that a public authority, in order to inspire confidence in its functioning for the public interest and to satisfy the public accountability, which it owes, must act fairly and reasonably and if on the score of pubic interest, a higher tender is accepted in preference to a lower tender, it should not only record reasons for such decision, but also communicate its decision to the concerned parties. Although it does not appear that the appellant was informed of the Board's decision to select respondent No. 5, the reasons for such selection have been clearly indicated in the critical and comparative evaluation of technical competency. We, therefore, do not find any reason to strike down the decision made in favour of respondent No. 5."

We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench to the effect that interference by the Writ Court for mere infraction of any statutory provision or norms, if such infraction has not resulted in injustice is not a matter of course. In the case of Shiv Shanker Dal Mills v. State of Haryana & andrs., AIR 1980 SC 1037, the dealers in that case had paid market fees at the increased rate of 3%, which was raised from the original 2 per cent under haryana act 22 of 1977. The excess of 1 per cent over the original rate was declared ultra vires by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kewal Krishna Puri and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 1008. The excess of 1 per cent over the original fate having been declared ultra vires, became refundable to the respective dealers from whom they were recovered by the Market Committee concerned. The demand for refund of the excess amounts illegally recovered from them not having been complied with, the dealers filed Writ Petitions under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to that effect to the Market Committee concerned. The Market Committees contended that although the refund of the excess collections might be legally due to the dealers, many of them had in turn recovered this excess percentage from the next purchasers. While disposing of the petition and laying down guidelines, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:

"Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order as public interest dictates and equity projects. Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go where only private interests are involved. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations as of public interest."

15. It has been rightly observed that legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal Court of Appeal, which it is not. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that neutralization beyond the permissible limit of 100% under the impugned notification is only with respect to lowly paid workman engaged in the scheduled employment in question and has not resulted in a material failure of justice. To declare the special allowance part of the impugned notification to be illegal, is bound to result into untold hardship and miseries to them and it might create a lot of difficulties also in recovery of excess amount paid to them pursuant to the said notification. Therefore, in our view, this is a fit case where we should refuse to exercise our discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by striking down the part of the notification granting special allowance.

16. In the result, both these petitions fail. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Normally, after rejection of the petitions, interim relief granted, should be vacated, but by the order dated 26th December, 1979, while granting interim relief, this Court had directed the petitioners to deposit the balance of fifty per cent of the special allowance in a special Bank Account and it was directed that such Bank Account should not be operated upon till the disposal of the petitions. This order was passed with a view to seeing that if the petitions are dismissed, then the amount deposited should be disbursed to the employees, who are entitled to the special allowance. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Patel has stated that pursuant to the above referred direction, rest of the fifty per cent of the special allowance was deposited by the petitioners in Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajkot by opening a Special Bank Account, namely Current A/c. No. 31712 in the name of Saurashtra Paper & Board Mills Ltd., Minimum-Wages High Court - Petitioners' Account. Mr. Patel has further stated that the amount lying in the above referred Current Account had accumulated and Rupees four lacs have been deposited in Fixed Deposit Receipt in the said Bank and the amount of Rs. 18,727.80 ps. (Rupees eighteen thousand seven hundred twenty-seven and paise eighty only) is lying in the Current A/c. No. 31712. In view of this, we permit the petitioners to encash, if necessary, the F.D.R. with the Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajkot prematurely also, if the F.D.R. is not going to mature within three months from today. The petitioners are directed to disburse the amount deposited in the above referred F.D.R. and lying in Current A/c. No. 31712 to the employees, who are entitled to receive the same. For any reason, if such amount cannot be paid to the employee on account of his death or on account of his whereabout is not being known, shall be deposited with the prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 who shall deal with the money so deposited with him in the manner prescribed under the Act. A copy of the writ is ordered to be sent to the Bank of India, Main Branch, Rajkot.