- (1.) 82 workers of the District Engineering Workers Union (Branch Steel Strips Limited) Jaitowal Kalan, Ahmedgarh, Tehsil Malkerkotla, District Sangrur have filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 30.5.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP No.5094 of 2000) filed by the District Engineering Workers Union was disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the union and the management by passing the following order:- "Counsel state that the parties have entered into a compromise and have settled their dispute amicably. The compromise dated 29.5.2008 has been placed on record and the learned counsel for the parties state that both the parties are bound by the aforementioned compromise. The compromise is taken on record as Mark 'A'. Shri Jaswant Singh and Shri Charanjeet Singh, President and General Secretary respectively of the District Engineering Workers Union (Branch Steel Strips Limited) (Regd.) are present in Court. They have stated that they have not only signed the compromise on behalf of the entire Union which comprises of 174 workers but will adhere to the terms and conditions of the compromise Mark 'A'. It is further stated that the compromise has been entered into after consulting all the members of the workers union and with their consent. Mr. Hemant Sarin, learned counsel for respondent No.4-M/s Steel Strips Limited, has handed over 174 cheques totaling Rs.80,90,000/- in favour of 174 workers whose names have been given in the schedule attached with the compromise Mark 'A'. The cheques have been handed over to Shri Jaswant Singh and Shri Charanjeet Singh, President and General Secretary of the District Engineering Workers Union (Branch Steel Strips Limited). The photocopies of all the cheques have been taken on record as Mark 'B'. In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the compromise Mark 'A'. Respondent No.4 shall ensure that all the cheques are honoured as and when the same are presented. Copy of the order along with the statement made by the respective parties be given under the signatures of the Court Secretary."
(2.) Since the appellants were not the parties in the writ petition and they were only the workers of the union, who had filed the aforesaid writ petition in their representative capacity, the appellants moved an application (C.M. No.1817 of 2011) for permission to file an appeal against the impugned order. In this appeal the appellants have also challenged the order dated 15.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the applications (C.M. No.16627 of 2008 and C.M. No.6695 of 2009) filed by some workers of the union for recalling of the order dated 30.5.2008 were dismissed.
(3.) Though this appeal is barred by limitation, and along with the appeal, the appellants have filed two separate applications (CM Nos.1816 and 1815 of 2011) for condonation of delay of 902 days in filing as well as 66 days in re-filing the appeal, yet without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge.;