Disposed¶30

Nilesh R Gawde v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/1332/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust; Labour Court Mumbai awards challenged in writ petitions by workmen; references answered in negative; amicable settlement during hearing on Court's suggestion; lumpsum compensation Rs.2,00,000/- each to seven workmen and Rs.50,000/- each to five workmen; full and final settlement; impugned awards modified; payment within two weeks; no other service-related benefits; writ petitions disposed of; expressly declared non-precedential; Bombay High Court; Sandeep V. Marne, J.; 17 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Awards modified: Respondent-Trust to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to seven workmen and Rs.50,000/- each to five workmen within two weeks, towards full and final settlement; no other service-related benefits payable; all Writ Petitions disposed of. ¶30

Nilesh R Gawde vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Awards passed by the Labour Court at Mumbai in the References initiated at the instance of the Petitioner-workmen (in which the References were answered in the negative) should be interfered with by this Court.

¶21

Court's answer

In view of the agreement prevailing between the parties, nothing remains to be decided in the Petitions; accordingly, the impugned Awards stand modified to the extent that the Respondent-Trust shall pay to each of the Petitioners the amount of compensation indicated, within a period of two weeks.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Except the lumpsum compensation payable under the settlement, the Petitioners-workmen shall not be entitled to any other service-related benefits from the Respondent-Trust.

¶30

Key takeaways

The arrangement is made on account of mutual settlement between the parties and shall not be treated as precedent in any other proceedings.obiter¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Sandeep V. Marne, J., 17 November 2025 - Group of twelve writ petitions by workmen challenging various Awards of the Labour Court at Mumbai in references initiated at their instance, which the Labour Court had answered in the negative. As the hearing progressed, out of deference to the Court's suggestion, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement: the Respondent, Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust, agreed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to seven petitioners (Vilas Agre, Ajay S. Tarkar, Chandrakant Kamble, Laxman B. Utale, Subratkumar Sahu, Tukaram Mane, Silest D'costa) and Rs.50,000/- each to five petitioners (Nilesh Gawde, Falguni Solanki, Nagraj Guddam, Ravindra Sawant, Dayanand Neman), towards full and final settlement. The impugned Awards were modified to the extent of these payments, to be made within two weeks; except the lumpsum compensation, the workmen were held not entitled to any other service-related benefits. All writ petitions disposed of. The Court expressly clarified that the arrangement was on account of mutual settlement and shall not be treated as precedent in any other proceedings.

¶1

k 1/4 36 wp 828.23 group os.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2023

¶4

Vilas R. Agre ....Petitioner V/S Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1332 OF 2025 Nilesh R. Gawde ....Petitioner V/S Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1865 OF 2024 Falguni Jagdish Solanki ....Petitioner V/S Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1592 OF 2023 Nagraj Prakash Guddam ....Petitioner V/S Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2025

¶7

Ravindra R. Sawant ....Petitioner V/S

¶8

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.1845 OF 2024

¶11

Dayanand M. Neman ....Petitioner V/S

¶12

Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent

¶13

katkam Page No. 1 of 4

¶14

k 2/4 36 wp 828.23 group os.doc

¶15

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3055 OF 2022
Ajay S. Tarkar ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1858 OF 2024
Laxman B. Utale ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1847 OF 2024
Chandrakant K. Kamble ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.900 OF 2023
Silest Dcosta ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.860 OF 2023
Tukaram D. Mane ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.919 OF 2023
Subratkumar S. Sahu ....Petitioner V/S
Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust ....Respondent
_________ katkam Page No. 2 of 4

¶16

k 3/4 36 wp 828.23 group os.doc

¶17

Mr. Bennet D’costa with Ms. Jignasha Pandya and Mr. Sushant Dekhane i/b Mr. Rahil Fazelbhoy for the Petitioner/s.

¶18

Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Yash Vyas for Respondent.

¶19

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2025.

¶20

P.C.:

¶21

In these Petitions, various Awards passed by Labour Court at Mumbai in References initiated at the instance of the Petitionerworkmen are under challenge. The Labour Court has answered the References in the negative.

¶22

I have heard Mr. D’costa, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. Bapat, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Respondent. As the hearing of the Petitions progressed, and out of deference to the suggestion made by this Court, parties have arrived at amicable settlement. As per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the Respondent-Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust has agreed to pay to the following seven workmen lumpsum compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each towards full and final settlement.

¶23

Sr. Nos.	Name of Petitioner/s	Writ Petition Nos.
1	Vilas Agre	828 of 2023
2	Ajay S.Tarkar	3055 of 2022
3	Chandrakant Kamble	1847 of 2024
4	Laxman B. Utale	1858 of 2024
5	Subratkumar Sahu	919 of 2023
6	Tukaram Mane	860 of 2023
7	Silest D’costa	900 of 2023

¶24

Page No. 3 of 4

¶25

katkam

¶26

k 4/4 36 wp 828.23 group os.doc

¶27

Similarly in respect of following five workmen, the RespondentTrust has agreed to pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards full and final settlement.

¶28

Sr. Nos.	Name of Petitioner/s	Writ Petition Nos.
1	Nilesh Gawde	1332 of 2025
2	Falguni Solanki	1865 of 2024
3	Nagraj Guddam	1592 of 2023
4	Ravindra Sawant	1307 of 2025
5	Dayanand Neman	1845 of 2024

¶29

The above arrangement is acceptable to all the 12 workmen who are Petitioners in the present Petitions.

¶30

In view of the Agreement prevailing between the parties, nothing remains to be decided in the Petitions. Accordingly, the impugned Awards shall stand modified to the extent that the Respondent-Trust shall pay to each of the Petitioners the amount of compensation as indicated above within a period of two weeks. Except the lumpsum compensation so payable, the Petitioners-workmen shall not be entitled to any other service-related benefits from the Respondent-Trust. With the above directions, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of.

¶31

It is clarified that the above arrangement is being made on account of mutual settlement between the parties and the same shall not be treated as precedent in any other proceedings.

¶32

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶33

SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM

¶34

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2025.11.18 16:38:38 +0530

¶35

Page No. 4 of 4

¶36

katkam

Nilesh R Gawde v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh R Gawde v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. vs Sumpoorna Portfolio Limited

Hn Safal Infraspace Private Limited vs Scs Construction LLP

Tata Capital Limited vs Jai Prakash AGRAHARl

Som Projects Pvt. Ltd. vs UOI Thru Chief Engineer (Navy) Mumbai

Aryamaan Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd.

Aditya Birla Capital Limited vs Kancharlla Srikanth