Judgment 1. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court both the management as well as the workman approached this Court. The workman filed in W.P.No.33035 of 2004 challenging the award in respect of denial 50% of backwages whereas the management filed in W.P.No.38440 of 2003 against the award reinstating workman with 50% of the backwages. Both the Writ Petitions are dealt with together and for sake of convenience the workman is described as such on the Transport Corporation is described as "Management". .2. The facts of the case are as follows:- .The workman joined service as Driver on 210. 1976 and he was made permanent on 27.07.1978. It was alleged that the workman absented himself without authorisation from 25.03.1988 and a notice was alleged to have been given to the workman. After making a paper publication, a domestic enquiry was conducted and he was terminated on 010. 1988. 3. Challenging his termination the workman filed W.P.No.8864 of 1990 and the same was dismissed, observing that the workman could seek redressals before the Labour Court. Thereafter, the workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.535 of 1990 and by award dated 26.07.1994, the Labour Court reinstated the workman with 50% backwages. Against the said award the management preferred W.P.No.19791 of 1994 which was disposed on 07.03.2002 setting aside the Labour Court award remanding the matter for fresh consideration. 4. Meanwhile, the Management, Transport Corporation reinstated the workman. As per the direction of this Court passed in W.P.No.19791 of 1994 dated 07.03.2002, the Labour Court, Coimbatore reconsidered the matter afresh and passed the award reinstating the workman with 50% backwages on 22.07.2002. The said award is impugned by both workman as well as the Management. .5. 4. Meanwhile, the Management, Transport Corporation reinstated the workman. As per the direction of this Court passed in W.P.No.19791 of 1994 dated 07.03.2002, the Labour Court, Coimbatore reconsidered the matter afresh and passed the award reinstating the workman with 50% backwages on 22.07.2002. The said award is impugned by both workman as well as the Management. .5. Mr.T.Chandrasekaran, learned counsel for the Management submitted that the workman was served with notice and in fact it is a categorical stand of the Management that a show cause notice was issued to the workman informing him about as to why action should not be taken against for his unauthorised absence from duty and that the said first notice was served and a subsequent notice was returned and therefore a publication was effected in a leading newspaper and that domestic enquiry was conducted and pursuant to that only the workman was terminated and that therefore there was no justification for the Labour Court to reinstate the workman finding that the notice was not at all served on the workman. 6. Mr.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the workman submitted that the petitioner joined service in 1976 and he was sincerely working for the Corporation. For no fault him, the workman he was terminated without giving any proper notice. In fact this is a second round of litigation and because of that the workman is put to mental agony. He submitted no notice was served and in fact the alleged first notice was not at all marked before the Tribunal and only the publication through the newspaper was effected. Ex.M7 the alleged second notice dated 14.07.1988 which was returned was not sent to the workmans address. Therefore, the finding given by the Labour Court cannot be interfered with. .7. Regulation 6A of the standing order speaks about abandonment of work and 14 speaks about unauthorised absence for more than eight days. If the petitioner remained absent unilaterally without applying for leave, the Management has got power and jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings against the workman. For initiation of every proceedings there should be a show cause notice. The show cause notice should be served on the delinquent workman. If the petitioner remained absent unilaterally without applying for leave, the Management has got power and jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings against the workman. For initiation of every proceedings there should be a show cause notice. The show cause notice should be served on the delinquent workman. In this case though in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit stated a registered notice was sent on 08.04.1988 directing the workman to explain his absence from 25.03.1988 and the said notice was alleged to have been served no acknowledgement for having served the notice was marked before the Labour Court. In the absence of any acknowledgement or proof of service of the said show cause notice, all the subsequent proceedings taken out against the workman are initiated. Regarding service of notice, it was elaborately dealt with by the Labour Court in paragraphs 9,10,11,12,13 & 14 of the award. It is seen from the award that the notice was sent to a driving school which was alleged to be run by the workman. If the Management was serious enough to prove the fact that the driving school was run by him, efforts should have been made to prove that the said school was run by him. On the other hand based on information that he was seen sitting in the driving school daily, it seems the notice was directed to that address and the same was duly returned. The evidence taken on behalf of the workman management was meticulously examined by the Labour Court elaborately and gave a finding on fact that the notice was not served on the workman. 8. Apart from that in paragraph 15 of the award it has been observed as follows:- " (TAMIL) " The aforesaid finding that the workman was regularly attending the duty and it is based on the evidence of Ex.M1 and therefore, the Labour Court is justified in giving a finding that the petitioner was reporting the duty regularly and daily till 29.03.1988 and therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the managements contention that the workman did not report to duty from 25.03.1988 to 29.03.1988. 9. The Labour Court is the last forum to determine the fact and it rightly found that the workman was reporting duty and the notice alleged to have been sent to the workman was not at all served and therefore, the workman was reinstated with 50% backwages. 9. The Labour Court is the last forum to determine the fact and it rightly found that the workman was reporting duty and the notice alleged to have been sent to the workman was not at all served and therefore, the workman was reinstated with 50% backwages. Moreover, the Labour Court taking into consideration the period in which the workman did not work, rightly reinstated the workman only with 50% of the backwages and therefore, the award of the Labour Court is justified and the same cannot be interfered with. 10. The jurisdiction of this Court is very limited under Article 226 and this Court can exercise the jurisdiction when there is miscarriage of justice and the finding is based on no evidence or finding is perverse. In this case as stated earlier the findings given by the Labour Court are based on evidence and therefore, it cannot be set aside. 11. It is represented by Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the petitioner that the workman retired from service on 25.03.2004 and the service benefits have not been given to him. Therefore, the Management is directed to calculate and to pay the eligible amounts to the workman within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. In view of that, these Writ Petitions filed both by the Management as well as the Labour Court are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.