Falguni Jagdish Solanki vs Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

k 1/4 36 wp 828.23 group os.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO.828 OF 2023

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

Falguni Jagdish Solanki v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Falguni Jagdish Solanki v. Breach Candy Swimming Bath Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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