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 p. 2 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, p. 3 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 p. 5 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