JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) - In all these petitions preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is laid to common award dated 8.3.2011, passed by Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, in ID No.155/2002, titled as Shri Fagnu Ram and others v. Director, Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute. 2. The authority below answered the reference(s) in favour of the workmen holding: (a) the employer to have admitted having engaged the workmen who had completed 240 days of work in the year preceding, the date of alleged termination; and (b) the workmen were precluded from placing their record of engagement, establishing the factum of having completed 240 days, for the period in question, which in any event was withheld by the employer leading to drawal of adverse inference. In any event, material on record, established that even though work which was perennial in nature, was allotted to persons who were junior, ignoring the claims of the workmen, which was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel with vehemence argues that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute inter se the parties. Also faintly that the findings returned are erroneous, illegal and perverse. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the record so made available, we are of the considered view that both the contentions need rejection. 5. The jurisdictional issue was never ever raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal, at any point in time, neither at the time of making reference nor at the time of adjudication of the lis. Even in the instant petitions, no such ground stands taken. Also, the order of reference was never ever assailed by the Management. No issue with regard thereto was ever framed nor evidence led. 6. Coming to the second issue, we find the findings returned by the Tribunal, in answering the reference, are borne out from the record. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Undisputedly, work was available and without any reason, services of the workmen dispensed with and work allotted to other persons which, though was on outsource basis. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Undisputedly, work was available and without any reason, services of the workmen dispensed with and work allotted to other persons which, though was on outsource basis. But then, it is not that in principal, policy decision was taken that no work was to be carried out by engaging the labourers already in engagement. Work was available but not offered to the workmen. In the preceding years, workmen had actually worked for more than 240 calendar days, preceding the date of termination of their services and had no reason not to continue with the same. 7. As such, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned award. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the workmen, S/Shri Tek Chand Sharma, K.C. Sankhyan, Pawan Gautam, Sunil Mohan Goel and Paras Dhaulta, jointly submit that their clients i.e. workmen, would be happy if the order is modified and in stead of re-instatement, they be awarded reasonable compensation. They pray that in the given facts and circumstances, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each would be adequate compensation in lieu of re-in-statement. This would be in in lieu of all monetary claims. 9. We find such suggestion to be absolutely legal and reasonable, more so, in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court, in Vice-Chancellor, Lucknow University, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh v. Akhilesh Kumar Khare and another, 2016 (1) SCC 521 . 10. As such, operative portion of the impugned award 8.3.2011, passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, in ID No.155/2002 Shri Fagnu Ram and others v. Director, Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute, is modified to the extent that each of the workmen would be entitled to compensation as a lump sum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. This would be in lieu of re-in-statement and all monetary claims. 11. We direct that such amount shall positively be released to each one of the workmen within a period of two months from today. It stands clarified that if said amount is not paid within the said period, then the workmen would be entitled to payment of interest thereupon in terms of the Statute. 12. With the aforesaid observations, present petitions stand disposed of, so also, pending application(s), if any.