Judgment :- 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 was undertaken for building sluices on the project estimates made and therefore since the project is completed and the estimate amount was spent on the project, there will be no further work for persons like the first respondent. It is also stated that the place where the first respondent worked has been disbanded with effect from 30.97. Therefore, no relief can be granted. 4. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent alone examined himself as W.W.1 and he marked the termination order and service certificate as the two documents being Exs.W-1 and W-2. No attempt was made to summon any records from the custody of the petitioner and the petitioner was also slack in defending the case, even though specific contentions have been raised in the counter statement. 5. It is not enough to make any pleadings before the Labour Court, but also to let in evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate the claim. Otherwise, pleadings will remain only as pleadings without any evidentiary value. But the Labour Court on the basis of the oral evidence let in by the workman and the petitioner not having discharged their obligation, directed the reinstatement with backwages. 6. Otherwise, pleadings will remain only as pleadings without any evidentiary value. But the Labour Court on the basis of the oral evidence let in by the workman and the petitioner not having discharged their obligation, directed the reinstatement with backwages. 6. Pending the writ petition, the first respondent was directed to be paid Rs.20,400/-towards arrears under Section 17-B payment and thereafter from September, 2000, Rs.1,200/- per month to be paid every month pending disposal of the writ petition. 7. Mr. Nazirullah, learned counsel for the first respondent states that the arrears of Section 17-B amount have been paid but, with reference to the monthly payment, there has been some slackness on the part of the petitioner. Further, by order dated 29. 2000, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.22,000/-before the Labour Court and the amount was directed to be deposited in a nationalized bank for a period of three years and the workman was also permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank. 8. In the present case, it is seen that since the petitioner has not deposited Rs.22,000/-on time, the amount could not be received by the Labour Court. Thereafter, the workman filed a claim petition being C.P.No.110 of 2003. In that, the Labour Court computed by order dated 20.2.2006 a sum of Rs.72,000/-towards wages for the period from 4. 95 to 312. 2002 with 6% interest and cost of Rs.200/-. 9. The petitioners are the officers of the State Government and when a dispute is raised, they should have taken proper steps to defend the stand of the department. In the present case, except filing a counter statement, the petitioners have not acquitted themselves by discharging their official duties, thereby causing heavy loss to the department. The Labour Court also went by oral statement of the first respondent and the service certificate issued to him, without deciding the issue whether the project was continuing and whether the first respondent has scope for any employment in any other department or project. Both sides have not let in any evidence on the said issue. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned award in I.D.No.203 of 1997 dated 37. 98. Hence the writ petition stands allowed and the I.D.No.203 of 1997 stands restored on the file of the second respondent-Labour Court. Both sides have not let in any evidence on the said issue. 10. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to sustain the impugned award in I.D.No.203 of 1997 dated 37. 98. Hence the writ petition stands allowed and the I.D.No.203 of 1997 stands restored on the file of the second respondent-Labour Court. Since it is a dispute of the year 1997 and already eleven years have elapsed, the Labour Court is directed to give preference in disposing of this dispute. In any event, the said dispute shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both sides are directed to cooperate in completing the trial. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.78 of 2002 is closed.