ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- This appeal by leave is directed against the order passed by learned Judge of Sind High Court, dated 13-2-1984 rejecting an application filed by appellants and respondents 3 to 17 (hereinafter to be referred to as appellants under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for allowing certain corrections in the judgment of the High Court, dated 25-9-1983 in Constitution Petition No. S-87 of 1979 which was passed by consent of the parties, on a compromise reached by them. By the compromise, respondent No. 1-Mills agreed to deposit Rs.3,15,000 in the Court for the satisfaction of the claims of appellants as under:- NameRespondent No. in theAmount High Court.
(1)Shamsuddin15Rs.44,000 (2)M. Younus3Rs.43,000 (3)Naimuddin23Rs.35,000 (4)Babu5Rs.35,000 (5)Maula Bux21Rs.30,000 (6)Bari Amin4Rs.5,000 (7)Painda Khan6Rs.5,000 (8)Abdul Jaleel7Rs.5,000 (9)Zakir Ahmed 9 Rs.5 , 000 (10)Mehdi Siddiq10 Rs.5,000
(11) Mehdi Hasan12Rs.5,000
(12) Abu Umar11Rs.5,000
(13) S. Ajmal Hasan13Rs.5,000
(14) Imtiaz Ahmad14 Rs.5,000
(15) Muhammad Ramzan16Rs.5,000
(16) Mukarram17Rs.5,000
(17) Sultan18Rs.5,000
(18) Dilbar Khan19Rs.5,000
(19) M. Idrees Khan20Rs.5,000
(20) Ali Haider22Rs.5,000
(21) Abdul Majeed8Rs.5,000 TotalRs.3,15,000
2. It may be mentioned that appellants are workmen employed in respondent-1 Mills, and there was a labour dispute between the parties which was the subject-matter of the Constitutional Petition No. S-87 of 1979. This dispute was settled by the parties by metal consent, and the amounts were payable to appellants in the sums shown against their names. It was stipulated in the compromise that "in case any of the respondents (appellants) does not withdraw the same (amount) in person, within two months from the fate of deposit, the same shall be paid back to petitioner (respondent 1 herein) without further notice to the respondents (appellants). Upon petitioner (respondent No. 1) depositing the amount as aforestated, the respondents (appellants) shall forthwith withdraw their execution application before the Assistant Commissioner (West)
Karachi".
3. In view of compromise between the parties learned Judge in the High Court decided the Constitutional petition in terms of the compromise by the judgment, dated 25-9-1983.
4. Appellants thereafter made an application under section 151 of the Code that the amounts shown in the application under section 21, rule 3 of the Code to six appellants mentioned herein "are incorrect due to miscalculation and the actual and correct amount payable" them is as follows:- NameRespondentAmount (1)Shamsuddin15Rs. 50,00 (2)Muhammad Younus3Rs. 50,000 (3)Naimuddin23Rs. 40,000 (4)Babu5Rs. 40,000 (5)Maula Bux21Rs. 40,000 (6)Muhammad Ramzan16Rs. 20,000 It was, therefore, prayed that the correction in the amounts payable to the aforesaid appellants may be made in the judgment of the Court dated 25-9-1983 and the payments may be made accordingly.
5. This application was heard by the same learned Judge in the High Court who had disposed of the Constitutional petition. He rejected the application by the order, dated 13-2-1984 on the ground that "According to compromise application the amount which was payable to each one of the above 21 defendants (appellants) now want that the amount payable to five (six) of them should be changed. Since to above application seeks to amend the decree which was passed in terms of the compromise hence I feel that I am not empowered to make any amendment in the decree or order which was passed according to the terms and conditions settled between the parties."
6. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellants from the order of the High Court, dated 13-2-1984 in order to examine the submissicr1 advanced by the appellants that their application was for the correction of an incidental slip in calculation of the sums payable to individual workers and was, therefore, competent in law.
7. Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal submits that since the total amount payable by respondent No. 1 was Rs.3,15,000, there was accidental slip in the amounts shown against the six appellants, and if calculation is made of the entree amounts payable to appellants as calculated according to mendacity application, it would be seen that there is no change in the total sum of Rs.3,15,000 payable by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the payment of amounts shown against the names of six appellants in the compromise application was an accidental slip and should have been allowed to be corrected.
8. Mr. Yousuf Rafi, learned Advocate-on-Record for respondent No. 1, on the other hand, pointed out that there was an inadvertent error in the total sums payable to appellant in the compromise application and the amount was incorrectly shown as Rs.3,15,000 instead if Rs.2,67,000, and the plea raised by the appellants that there miscalculation it the sums payable to six appellants is totally incorrect.
9. We find that there was an obvious error in the calculation of the total sum payable to the appellants according to the settlement between the parties which comes to Rs.2,67,000 and not Rs.3,15,000. The question is whether respondent 1 was to pay the total sum of Rs.3,15,000 to appellants, or they were to be paid the actual amount shown in the compromise application against their names. We find substance in the arguments advanced by Mr. Yousuf Raft that each worker, that is each appellant was to be paid the amount shown against his name in full and final settlement of the dispute brought by him in separate proceedings against respondent 1. This position is further fortified in the deed of settlement itself, in that, each of the appellants was to withdraw the actual sum shown against his name in the compromise application, and in case he did not withdraw the said amount, it was to be paid back to respondent 1, and not to any other worker (appellant). This being the clear position, the learned Judge in the High Court rightly rejected the application under section 151 of the Code on the ground that the respondents in the main case could not be permitted to change the terms of the settlement agreed upon, and consequently the judgment passed on the basis of the compromise.
10. For these reasons, there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Parties are however, left to bear their own costs.