Heard Mr. Nazirullah, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the petitioner and perused the records.

2. In this case, the first respondent raised a dispute in I.D.No.203 of 1997 before the second respondent-Labour Court. The claim of the first respondent was that he had worked in a project work at the Lower Bhavani Irrigation areas and the work is of a perennial nature and without any reason whatsoever, his services have been abruptly terminated and as he had put in more than three years of service, he is eligible for confirmation of his service and since before his termination no procedure as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was followed, the order of termination is void ab initio.

3. The writ petitioner filed a counter affidavit stating that the work in which the first respondent was engaged was a work charged establishment and since the project was completed, the first respondent was disengaged from the work with effect from 295. The total number of days worked was also disputed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the work in the Lower Bhavani irrigation scheme