Rajesh Balia, J.-Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents on caveat, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.

2. On a reference having been made about the termination of respondent No. 1, firstly the Labour Court found that the workman has been in continuous employment for a year as on the date of alleged termination. Inspite of request by the workman to produce the relevant records of his employment with the appellant during the 12 calender months immediately preceding the date of his termination, such record was not produced and the witnesses appearing on behalf of the appellant pleaded ignorance about his employment during the relevant year and also his knowledge about the workman working under him. He however admitted existence of record of attendance to be in possession of the department in his statement. In these circumstances drawing adverse inference for not producing relevant record which was in possession of the appellant and evasive statement of witnesses of the appellant, the Labour Court found in favour of the workman that he was in continuous employment for a period of one year atleas