Judgment SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Executive Engineer, Provincial Division no.1 P. W. D. Bandr Branch, Panipat of the state of Haryana, in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prays for quashing the award, dated January 31, 2002, copy whereof is annexed to the petition as Annexure P/4, vide which reference was accepted and the workman was granted reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages from the date of demand notice. 2. Undisputed facts are : that workman was engaged as a daily wager on temporary muster-rolls in the department of PWD on 27/01/1991. According to the management the workman left the job on his own on 31/12/1996. However, according to the workman, his services were terminated in entirely arbitrary manner without holding any inquiry. The workman served a i demand notice under Sec.2 (a) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) upon the concerned department on 25/06/1997, claiming reinstatement and payment of full back wages with continuity of service. In furtherance to the demand notice, the appropriate Government exercising its power under Sec.10 (l) (c) of the Act, made Reference No.496 of 1998 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, panipat, where the respondent-management filed a detailed reply. The parties led evidence in support of their respective case. Learned labour Court, vide its award, dated January 31, 2002, answered the reference in favour of the workman, afore noticed. Aggrieved from the award, afore noticed the management has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned Labour Court, while passing the reference in favour of the workman, placed reliance upon the statement of the workman, the documents produced and the statement of mw 1 Rajesh Kumar, ASDC. Relevant findings of the learned Labour Court reads as under: "in this case the workman as W 1 has stated that he has continuously worked from 1/10/198 4/12/1996 and on 1/01/1997 he was terminated from service without any notice, retrenchment compensation or seniority list. On the other hand the management has denied that the workman has not continuously worked and he has worked only for 162? days from january, 199 1/06/1993. The workman has also taken the plea that junior to him-Shamsher Singh is working with the management. This plea of the workman has not been specifically denied by the management witness neither in the cross-examination nor in the statement of mw 1. days from january, 199 1/06/1993. The workman has also taken the plea that junior to him-Shamsher Singh is working with the management. This plea of the workman has not been specifically denied by the management witness neither in the cross-examination nor in the statement of mw 1. It is stated by MW 1 that he does not know whether such person is working with the management department or not. The workman has also summoned seniority list of the workers but no seniority list was produced by the management. It was the duty of the management to produce the record of seniority list as well as the muster-roll for the period mentioned by the workman. In view of the observations made by our Hon ble High Court reported in 2001 (1) RSJ 648, adverse inference is hereby drawn against the management due to non-producing of record. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that termination of the services of workman is in violation of provisions of Sec.25- G of the Act as the principle of last come first go has not been followed by the management. Therefore, termination of the services of workman is illegal and liable to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside termination order of the workman and order for his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of demand notice i. e.25/06/1997. " 4. The management hardly produced any evidence to discharge the onus-placed upon it. On the contrary, it did not press issues No.2 and 3 relating to locus standi and territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The findings afore recorded are based upon proper appreciation of evidence produced before the labour Court. M-l himself stated that the workman had worked for 162 days from january, 199 1/06/1993. Despite specific request, the management did not produce the muster-roll nor the seniority list maintained by the petitioner-department. Both these documents, if produced, would have a direct bearing on the matter in controversy before the labour Court. It was not the case of the management that these documents have been destroyed or are not available with the respondent. Adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent-department for withholding the best evidence which was apparently in power and possession of the said department. 5. It was not the case of the management that these documents have been destroyed or are not available with the respondent. Adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent-department for withholding the best evidence which was apparently in power and possession of the said department. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State strenuously argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, full back wages could not have been awarded to the workman. The workman has raised a specific claim with regard to full back wages. In reply filed to statement of claim before the Labour Court, the management did not even vaguely state that the workman was gainfully employed after his services were terminated, as alleged. In fact, the claim for back wages as prayed was not even denied by the petitioner-department. The workman in his statement of claim had also claimed back wages and in cross-examination no suggestion was put to him that he was actually remained gainfully employed right from 1997 till the passing of the award or prior thereto. In absence of such pleadings and evidence by the petitioner-department, the court cannot deny back wages to the workman, merely on conjectures and imagination. The services of the workman were terminated in january 1997 and he had taken recourse to the legal proceedings by serving demand notice after pursuing the matter with the petitioner-department on 25/06/1997 itself. Thus, there was no inordinate delay on the part of the workman for taking recourse to appropriate remedies available to him in law, where the workman claimed back wages and such pleading is neither controverted nor any evidence is led to show that the workman was gainfully employed during the relevant period or that there were certain other attendant circumstances, which would compel the labour Court to deny such relief to the workman. Normally, workman would have to be awarded full back wages. 6. For the reasons aforestated, we find no error of law or otherwise in the impugned award, which is in consonance with the settled principle of law. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed. However, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.