भारत सरकार / Government of India

Daman 22^nd 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.

***

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 प्रकाधित / PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 2

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)

***

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 3

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, ववभाग, दमण

Department of the Labour & Employment, Daman

दूसरी मंजजल, उधोग भवन, भेंसलोर, नानी दमण

2^nd 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 & DD

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 4

CNR No. UTDD010012232015

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 04^th 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?”

Received on : 29/12/2015

Registered on : 29/12/2015

Decided on : 04/05/2026

Duration : Yrs. Ms. Ds.

10. 04. 06.

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 5

I.D.R.No. 03/2015

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.

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.

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:

Sr.No.

Name

Working since

Designation

Last drawn

salary

Mr. Mohd Aslam Ansari

December 2001

Training Incharge

17,035/-

Mr. Allama Iqbal

28.09.2012

Product Engineer

11,761/-

Mr. Satyendra Yadav

17.01.2000

Supervisor

17,751/-

Mr. Md. Mustafa

23.12.1999

Clean Room Incharge

24,382/-

Mr. Veerendra

03.03.2014

Asst. Supervisor

7,588/-

Mr. Dharmendra Yadav

02.04.2012

Asst. Supervisor

7,588/-

Mr. Ram Narayan Patel

28.06.2014

Supervisor

13000/-

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.

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 6

I.D.R.No. 03/2015

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.

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

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:

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 7

I.D.R.No. 03/2015

Sr.No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the second party workmen come under the

definition of workman?

No.

Whether the second party workmen are illegally

terminated from their service by first party company ?

Redundant

Whether second party workmen are entitled for

reinstatement with back wages??

Redundant

Whether second party workmen are entitled for the

benefit of seniority and continuation of service?

Redundant

What Award and order?

As per final order.

R E A S O N S

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-

SERIES – II No. 18 THE GAZETTE OF DNH & DD

Page 8

(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.