Gazette of DNH And DD, No. 18, 22 May 2026

click here for IIIF manifest

भारत सरकार / Government of India

सरकारी राजपत्र

OFFICIAL GAZETTE

संघ प्रदेश दादरा एवं नगर हवेली तथा दमण एवं दीव प्रशासन

U.T. ADMINISTRATION OF DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI AND

DAMAN AND DIU

श्रेणी - २

SERIES - II

प्राधिकरण द्वारा प्रकाशित / PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

Daman 22nd May, 2026 1 Jyaistha, 1948 (Saka) No. : 18

UT Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu,

Police Department,

Office of the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

District Police Head Quarters, Fudam,

Diu - 362520

No. PHQ/EST-II/Pers.File/2025/2024 Dated : 18/10/2025

Read:- Application dated:-23/10/2025 from Keyur Premji Solanki, Police Constable, PIS No. 28160046 of Police Head Quarter, Diu

O R D E R

The approval of the Competent Authority is hereby conveyed for the change of name in official records of "Keyur Premji Solanki" Police Constable PIS No. 28160046 serving in the Police Department, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu. It is hereby ordered that the name of "Keyur Premji Solanki" as recorded in Government records/documents may be read as "KEYUR PEMGI" instead of "KEYUR PREMJI SOLANKI".

This order is issued with the concurrence of the Director-cum-Joint Secretary (Pers.), Daman vide diary No. 1178852, dated:-21/08/2025 and approval of the Hon'ble Deputy Inspector General of Police, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu being appointing authority vide diary No. 1432303, dated:-28/08/2025.

Sd/–

Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Diu.

***

U.T. Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

Police Department, DNH & DD,

Police Headquarters, Dunetha,

Nani Daman, Daman - 396210.

No. PQ/EST-II/Pers. File/2026/1138 Dated : 28/03/2026

Read :- Application dated:- 16/09/2025 from Mangela Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai, Police Constable, PIS No. 28190034, Nani Daman Police Station, Daman.

O R D E R

The undersigned, being the competent authority, hereby order that the name of Shri Mangela Sagarkumar Ishwarbhai shall henceforth be read and known as Shri Sagarkumar Esvan.

Accordingly, his name shall be recorded and reflected as Shri Sagarkumar Esvan in all official records, documents, correspondence and related matters.

Sd/–

Dy. Inspector General of Police

DNH & DD

(Competent Authority)

***

U.T. Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

Police Department, DNH & DD,

Police Headquarters, Dunetha,

Nani Daman, Daman - 396210.

No. PQ/EST-II/Pers. File/2026/1139 Dated : 28/03/2026

Read :- Application dated:- 10/11/2025 from Patel Nirmalkumar Rameshbhai, Police Constable, PIS No. 28160064, Nani Daman Police Station, Daman.

O R D E R

The undersigned, being the competent authority, hereby order that the name of Shri Patel Nirmalkumar Rameshbhai shall henceforth be read and known as Shri Nirmalkumar Rameshchandra.

Accordingly, his name shall be recorded and reflected as Shri Nirmalkumar Rameshchandra in all official records, documents, correspondence and related matters.

Sd/–

Dy. Inspector General of Police

DNH & DD

(Competent Authority)

***

U.T. Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu

Police Department, DNH & DD,

Police Headquarters, Dunetha,

Nani Daman, Daman - 396210.

No. PQ/EST-II/Pers. File/2021/1141 Dated : 28/03/2026

Read :- Application dated:- 07/11/2025 from Halpati Banti Babar, Lady Police Constable, PIS No. 28130017, Crime Branch Police Station, Daman.

O R D E R

The undersigned, being the competent authority, hereby order that the name of Kum. Halpati Banti Babar shall henceforth be read and known as Kum. Banti Babar Halpati.

Accordingly, her name shall be recorded and reflected as Kum. Banti Babar Halpati in all official records, documents, correspondence and related matters.

Sd/–

Dy. Inspector General of Police

DNH & DD

(Competent Authority)

***

संघ प्रदेश दादरा एवं नगर हवेली तथा दमण एवं दीव प्रशासन,

U.T. Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu,

श्रम एवं रोजगार, विभाग, दमण

Department of the Labour & Employment, Daman

दूसरी मंजिल, उधोग भवन, भेंसलोर, नानी दमण

2nd Floor, Udyog Bhavan, Bhenslore, Nani Daman

No. LE/LI/DMN/Fact-4(7)/2015/2026-27/91 Date: 14/05/2026

Subject: Publication of Award in IDR in the Official Gazette.

With reference to the above cited subject, the copy of Award received from I/c. Superintendent, Civil Court (S.D.), Daman in IDR No. 03/2025 dated 04.05.2026 of M/s. Aman Medical Products Pvt. Ltd., V/s. 1. Md. Mustafa, 2. Mohd. Aslam Ansari, 3. Allama Iqbaal, 4. Satyendra Yadav, 5. Veerendra, 6. Dharmendra Yadav, 7. Ram Narayan Patel is here by published in the Official Gazette of this UT Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu for general information.

Sd/– (Aarti Agarwal) Dy. Director-cum-Dy. Secy. (Labour) DNH & DDSERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD Page 4 CNR No. UTDD010012232015

Received on : 29/12/2015 Registered on : 29/12/2015 Decided on : 04/05/2026 Duration : Yrs. Ms. Ds. 10. 04. 06.

IN THE COURT OF THE LABOUR JUDGE, At: DAMAN (Presided over by Pranita P. Bharsakade-Wagh)

I.D.R No. 3/2025

Exh. No. 52

M/s. Aman Medical Products Pvt. Ltd., S.No. 336/1, Bhimpore, Nani Daman. ……. First Party.

V/s.

1) Md. Mustafa,, 2) Mohd. Aslam Ansari, 3) Allama Iqbaal, 4) Satyendra Yadav, 5) Veerendra, 6) Dharmendra Yadav 7) Ram Narayan Patel,

Ward No.2, House No. 3/309, Near Madina Masjit, Mota Ganchiwad, Daman.. ……. Second Party

Reference of Industrial Dispute as per section

12(5) read with 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

======================================================================== Appearance: Advocate Mr. S.S. Modasia, for the Second Party. ========================================================================

I.D.R.No. 03/2015

A W A R D (Delivered on 04th Day of May, 2026)

This is a reference received from the Deputy Secretary (Labour & Employment) under section 12 (5) read with 10(1)(c) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has been mentioned in the reference that an industrial dispute exists between M/s. Aman Medical Products Pvt. Ltd. and its workmen Md. Mustafa & ors. The management of the company and the workmen were called for conciliation. Both the parties appeared for conciliation. However, no conciliation could be reached out during the conciliation proceeding. Hence the Conciliation Officer has made this reference to the Labour Court to decide the issue "(1) Discharge or dismissal of workmen including re-instatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed? and (2) Whether office staff (officer) comes under the definition of workmen under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? If yes, what relief the workers are entitled?"SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD Page 5 I.D.R.No. 03/2015 2) After receiving this reference, notices were issued to the workmen (second party) and the company (first party). Accordingly, the second party workmen Mr. Mohd. Aslam Ansari, Mr. Satyendra Yadav and Mr. Mohamad Mustafa appeared through Advocate and filed their statement of claim on 22.08.2016.

3) The first party failed to file its reply to statement of claim. Therefore, the reference proceeded without the reply of the first party vide the order below Exh. 1 dated 15.07.2017. Therefore, the first party filed an application to condone the delay to set aside the order of proceeding without the reply.

Vide the order dated 02.02.2018, the reply of first party is taken on record at Exh. 18.

4) It has been submitted by the second party that they were illegally terminated from employment by the first party on 31.03.2015. They are working since many years with first party and have worked sincerely and wholeheartedly in the company. Their date of joining with designation and last drawn salary as under:

5) It is submitted that the present claim is filed by Mr. Mohd. Aslam Ansari, Mr. Satyendra Yadav and Mr. Md. Mustafa and restricted to themselves only. That the HR Manager of H-Tech group i.e. first party Mr. Shahid Lateef Khan informed the Daman unit namely Aman Products Pvt. Ltd., In-charge Mr. Alluaddin on 31.03.2015 by mail that company is facing hardship and adverse situation and hence management was compelled to take painful decision to relieve them w.e.f. 31.03.2015. All workmen used to work by their own under the supervision and guidance of Plant Manager Mr. Atif Raza. There are almost 50 workman working in company but the management has picked and choose seven workmen to terminate the job. There was no reason of termination and no notice was issued or charge were leveled or allegation were made against them. No inquiry was conducted and no dues were paid to any of workman. The company is working properly and manufacturing activity is in process. The said termination is illegal, prejudiced and done with bias mind. Vide the claim, the second party has prayed for declaration that the workmen were terminated illegally and also prayed for direction to reinstate them with the benefit of seniority and continuation of service with back wages.

I.D.R.No. 03/2015 6) The first party vide its reply at Exh. 18 has taken objection to the claim of the second party on the following grounds:

(1) That the first party has not illegally terminated the service of second party. In fact the first party before termination of their services has given one months prior notice to them on 07.01.2015 in writing. But they did not accept the same and remained adamant to continue their service till 31.03.2015.

(2) The second party have not worked in the capacity as workmen. In fact they have worked as a manager or as in charge and they were getting a handsome amount as a remuneration and therefore the contention of the second party that they are workman can not be considered.

(3) HR Manager has issued a relieving letter through email on 31.03.2015 following the notice on 07.01.2015 which is completely lawful and according to the service term. The second party are not the workman, they do not cover under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(4) Due to great financial hardship company has decided to cut on its unnecessary expenses and control the unconventional situation at the company as well as to protect the interest of the employee/labour classes workmen, management has chosen some of its staff to be terminated so the financial burden may be reduced and factory can be saved, therefore the first party has relieved the second party.

(5) The management has followed all the Rules and Regulation in relieving them. They are no longer the employee of the company, so that they are entitled to claim any amount from the company and there is no question to reinstate them as alleged by them.

(6) The first party is a private limited company incorporated under the Company Act and facing great financial loss which resulted into no activities or production in the factory and it is closed since long time.

7) In view of the aforesaid grounds, the first party has prayed to dismiss the claim.

8) On the basis of the rival contentions of both the parties, following issues were framed by my learned Predecessor vide Exh 43. I have reproduced them alongwith my findings thereon with reasons as under:

I.D.R.No. 03/2015

R E A S O N S

9) To prove their claim the second party claimants Mohamad Mustafa, Mohamad Aslam and Satyendra Yadav have filed their evidence affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief vide Exh. 20, 33 and 44 respectively. They have relied upon following documentary evidence: certificate regarding service (Exh. 35), Certificate of LPG connection (Exh. 36), pay slips (Exh. 37 to 39), letters to PF Commissioner (Exh. 40 and 41), office copy of leave application (Exh. 42), certificate regarding service (Exh. 49).

As to issue No.1:

10) The Conciliation Officer had referred the industrial dispute of seven workmen. However, only three claimants namely Mr. Mohd. Aslam Ansari, Mr. Satyendra Yadav and Mr. Mohamad Mustafa appeared before the Court and filed their statement of claim. In order to prove their claim, Mr. Mohamad Mustafa, Mr. Aslam Alam and Satyendra Yadav have filed their evidence affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief on record vide Exh. 20, 33 and 44 respectively. They have also relied upon the documents which are mentioned above. They have appeared before the Court in the capacity of workmen. However, the first party has denied that they are the workmen. Though the claimants are not cross-examined by the first party, in view of the issue No. 1, the Court has to see 'whether the second party falls in the category of workmen'. The definition of "workman" is provided in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It reads as under:

"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory

work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied,

and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial

dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or

retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose

dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include

any such person-

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950

(46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a

prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding [ten

thousand rupees] per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties

attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of

a managerial nature.]

11) It has been argued on behalf of the claimants that they fall in the category of workmen. However, on perusal of their evidence affidavit and the pay slips issued to them by the first party regarding their employment show that Mr. Mohamad Aslam is working as training incharge and his last drawn salary is Rs. 17,035/. Mr. Satyendra Yadav is working as supervisor and his last drawn salary is Rs. 17,751/- and Mr. Mohamad Mustafa is working as a clean room incharge and his last drawn salary is Rs. 24,382/.

Considering the designations and the salary drawn by the second party, they do not fall in the category of 'workman' in view of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned Advocate for the claimants has also not clarified as to how the second party, inspite of drawing the salary exceeding Rs. 10,000/- and working in a managerial capacity, fall in the category of workmen. Therefore, considering the evidence affidavit of the claimants along with the documentary evidence, I find that the claimants were not working with the first party company in the capacity of workmen. Therefore, I answer issue No.1 in the negative.

As to issue No. 2 to 5:

12) As the claimants have failed to prove that they were working in the capacity of workmen with the first party company, the issue No. 2 to 4 become 'redundant'. Hence in answer to issue No. 5, I pass the following order:

O R D E R

(1) The reference is answered in the negative.

(2) A copy of the order be sent to the Commissioner (Labour) for information and necessary action.

Date: 04.05.2026 Daman

Sd/– (Pranita P. Bharsakade-Wagh) Labour Judge, Daman

***

Published by : e-gazette, Department of Planning & Statistics, DNH & DD.