M/S. BHARUCH DAHEJ RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITEDversusREGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER (C), VADODARA

       C/SCA/3580/2025                          ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3580 of 2025
                                  With
          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2026
             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3580 of 2025
==========================================================
           M/S. BHARUCH DAHEJ RAILWAY COMPANY LIMITED
                              Versus
       REGIONAL LABOPUR COMMISSIONER (C), VADODARA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 10/03/2026

                             ORAL ORDER


ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2026


        Heard the learned counsel Mr. Mahinkhan H. Pathan for the
applicants and the learned counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the
respondent No.1.
        The applicants are permitted to be joined as party respondents
in the Special Civil Application. The Civil Application is allowed and
disposed of accordingly.

ORDER IN R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3580 of 2025

1.      Issue Notice to the newly added respondents. The learned
counsel Mr. Mahirkhan H. Pathak waives service of notice on behalf of
the newly added respondents. He submits that he shall %le his
Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents during the course of the
day. He is permitted to %le his Vakalatnama.



                                Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/3580/2025                            ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026




2.    Th present Special Civil Application impugns the order dated
08.07.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Vadodara, whereby the respondent No.1 has
passed a direction to the petitioner company to deposit a sum of
Rs.25,07,582/- in the o3ce of the authority towards overtime wages to
be paid to the respondent workmen.


3.    The learned counsel Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the
petitioner company submits that in the Claim Application No.26 of
2024, the respondent No.1 authority had issued notice to the
petitioner company for non-payment of overtime wages for the period
from April 2023 to August 2023 to the respondent workmen, during
which, they were employed for the work of Railway Track Maintenance
between Sammi-Dajhej Railway Station. The learned counsel submits
that upon receipt of notice, the representative of the petitioner
company was present on the %rst date of hearing, i. e. on 26.06.2024
and thereafter, the hearing was kept on 03.07.2024. On the said date
of hearing i.e. on 03.07.2024, the representative of the petitioner
company was not present before the respondent No.1 authority and
the same is also recorded in the impugned order. The learned counsel
submits that without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner company, the respondent No.1 authority has proceeded to
pass an order directing the petitioner company to pay overtime wages
to the respondent workmen. He submits that the impugned order is in
breach of principles of natural justice and the same be quashed and set
aside and the case be remanded back for fresh hearing on merits.


4.    The learned counsel Mr. Mahinkhan H. Pathan appearing for the
respondent workmen submits that the respondent workmen have
been denied the overtime wages under the Minimum Wages Act and

                               Page 2 of 5
     C/SCA/3580/2025                           ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026




therefore, the impugned order, which has been passed, is just and
proper. However, he does not dispute the fact that on the date of
hearing, the representative of the petitioner company was not present
and the order has been passed ex-parte.


5.    Heard the learned counsels for the parties, considered the
submissions and perused the documents on record.


6.    A perusal of the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 reveals that
during the hearing on 03.07.2024, the representative of the petitioner
company was absent without intimation. The respondent workmen
claim overtime wages for the period from April 2023 to August 2023,
during which, they were employed for the work of Railway Track
Maintenance between Sammi-Dajhej Railway Station. The respondent
No.2 Labour Enforcement O3cer had conducted the inspection on
22.09.2023 at the establishment of the petitioner company and
thereafter, inspection report – cum – show cause notice dated
25.09.2023 was issued to the petitioner company calling upon the
petitioner to explain various breaches including breach of non-payment
of overtime wages to the respondent workmen as per their attendance
for the period from April 2023 to August 2023, when they were
employed for the work of Railway Track Maintenance between Sammi-
Dajhej Railway Station. The petitioner company was also called upon to
submit its compliance report. It appears that on the %rst date of
hearing, i.e. on 26.06.2024, the representative of the petitioner
company was present and thereafter, the hearing was kept on
03.07.2024. On 03.07.2024, the representative of the petitioner
company was not present before the respondent No.1 authority. It is
the speci%c case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner was never supplied the relevant documents and therefore,

                               Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/3580/2025                                ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026




the petitioner was not in a position to submit its reply to the show
cause notice. In the impugned order, the respondent No.1 authority
has also not recorded that the petitioner company was supplied the
relevant documents and no reply is forthcoming. Further, the
impugned order does not record any reasons in respect of the
violations committed by the petitioner and also does not record any
%nding as to how the workmen were entitled for overtime wages
amounting to Rs.25,07,582/-. The impugned order is de-hors any
reasons and is in breach of principles of natural justice.


7.    Accordingly, the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is quashed
and set aside. The Claim Application No.26 of 2024 is restored to the
%le of the respondent No.1 authority. The petitioner is directed to %le
an application to the respondent No.1 authority within a period of one
week for supplying the relevant documents. Upon receipt of such
application, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall supply the relevant
documents to the petitioner relating to Claim Application No.26 of
2024 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such an
application. Upon supply of such documents, the petitioner shall %le its
reply to the claim application within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of such documents. No further time shall be granted to
the petitioner to %le its reply. Thereafter, the respondent No.1
authority shall decide the Claim Application No.26 of 2024 on its own
merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The
Claim Application shall be adjudicated dealing with all the contentions
so raised by the parties and by passing a reasoned order.


8.    It is clari%ed that this Court has not gone into the merits of the
case and no opinion is expressed thereon.



                                 Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/3580/2025                                                                ORDER DATED: 10/03/2026




9.        The Special Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of.
          No order as to costs.
          Direct service is permitted today.



                                                                               (ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)


cmk



Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: CHANDRASHEKHAR MAHESHKUMAR KOSHTI(HC01066), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/03/2026 15:10:25




                                                        Page 5 of 5