Judgment :- The petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. They have filed the writ petition in respect of I.D.No.80/97 dated 21.12.1998 passed by the second respondent Labour Court. The said dispute relates to the non-employment of the first respondent. 2. The writ petition was admitted on 18.09.2000 and an order of interim stay was also granted. Subsequently, the interim stay was extended and was made absolute on 3.1.2001. Despite notice, the first respondent did not appear. 3. Heard the arguments of Mrs.Sudharshana Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner Board. 4. A perusal of the Award shows that four other IDs were also heard together. Before the Labour Court, the first respondent had examined himself as W.W.3. On the side of the Board, 4 witnesses were examined. In respect of the first respondents case one Bagyaraj Xavier examined as M.W.2 gave evidence. 5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner- Management had filed a counter statement stating that since the first respondent was given appointment only for a period of 89 days and thereafter with periodical breaks in service, his services were continued in other projects. Hence, his work was purely temporary and he cannot seek for permanency. It was not true that he had worked for 430 days and it was for him to prove the same. The Labour Court upon examination of the witnesses and the materials placed before the Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 46 of 1981 will apply, notwithstanding the artificial break given by the Board, the workers are eligible to treat that period as continuous service. In so far as the first respondents case is concerned, the same was dealt in paragraph 18 of the impugned award. The Labour Court on the basis of the evidence given by the Workman and also on the basis of exhibits in Exs.P12 to P17 came to the conclusion that the workman had put in 507 days of work with breaks in between 1 or two days. The Labour Court rejected the case that the Scheme was handed over to the local bodies and therefore, there is no scope for employment for the first respondent. The Labour Court rejected the case that the Scheme was handed over to the local bodies and therefore, there is no scope for employment for the first respondent. The Labour Court also considered the evidence given by M.W.2 and held that inspite of the fact that NMR register was maintained, they were not able to produce any document that the first respondent did not complete 480 days of service. Therefore, the Court held that since there was infraction of Section 25F of the I.D.Act, their non-employment was illegal. 6. The petitioner Board also contended before the Labour Court that there was six years of delay in coming before the Court for which no explanation was offered by the workmen and therefore, he should not be given any relief. The Labour Court on the question of delay denied full backwages. However, it directed his reinstatement with continuity of service. It is this award which is under challenge. 7. Though writ petitions were filed in respect of I.D.Nos.53/97, 55/97, 83/97 and 85/97, subsequently, the workmen in those writ petitions were accommodated and those writ petitions were withdrawn. But however, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. 8. The contentions raised by the Management in this writ petition is squarely answered by this Court in P.R.Ramachandran v. Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board reported in (1996) 1 MLJ 415 . However, Mrs.Sudharshana Sundar, learned counsel for the Board contended that the first respondent did not prove to the satisfaction of the Court regarding his actual days of work and that the stand of the first respondent is contrary to his evidence. Infact, the only contention that was raised by the Board before the Court was that there was break in service. Both under Section 25-B as well as under Section 3, even discontinuity of service can be considered as continuous service, if minimum number of days were put in by a workman. When there is a clear violation of mandatory condition precedent prescribed under Section 25-F of the I.D.Act, the termination is invalid and the workmen are entitled for reinstatement with full backwages. 9. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248 has held that in circumstances under which if a workman was employed temporarily, his backwages can be denied. 9. The Supreme Court in Rajasthan Lalit Kala Academy v. Radhey Shyam reported in (2008) 13 SCC 248 has held that in circumstances under which if a workman was employed temporarily, his backwages can be denied. In the present case, the Labour Court had denied backwages since the workers have raised the dispute after delay. It must also be noted that in respect of Section 10(4), the Labour Court must answer the reference and it cannot reject a reference on grounds of delay. The Labour Court could not have thrown out a dispute only on the ground of delay as held by the Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. Haryana State Marketing Board reported in (2007) 14 SCC 291 . 10. In the light of the above, there are no infirmities or illegalities in the Award passed by the Labour Court. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The petitioner Board is directed to implement the Award within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.