JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, J. This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 302 of 1998 and 12163 of 1995, as common questions of facts are involved in both the writ petitions. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 302 of 1998 filed by the Management against the award dated 13.10.1997 passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar whereby, it was held that the termination of the workman was not justified and he was held entitled for full back wages for the period of his forced unemployment commencing from 01.04.1991 upto 21.07.1996, when he resumed CWP No. 302 of 1998 duty. The workman was held entitled for interest @ 12% p.a. on payment which was due from 26.02.1992, the date of demand notice. Initially, notice of motion was issued on the issue of back wages only and the writ was ordered to be heard along with CWP No. 12163 of 1995, in which the Management had challenged the interim award dated 18.05.1995 passed by the Labour Court whereby, the Labour Court had directed the Management to reinstate the workman into service with full back wages subject to the condition that the interim award would be subject to the final award to be passed. The said writ petition was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed with respect to the payment of back wages on 08.02.1996. Resultantly, the workman was taken back in service on 21.07.1996. Therefore, the issue in dispute only remains regarding the back wages which had been granted by the Labour Court from 01.04.1991 to 21.07.1996. 2. Perusal of the writ petition goes on to show that the workman was employed as Cane Kamdar on 31.03.1989 with the Management mill and his services were dispensed with on 01.04.1991. The demand notice was raised on 26.02.1992 and the matter was referred by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab on 08.07.1992 to the Labour Court, Jalandhar on the issue that whether the termination of the services of the workman were in proper and justified way and to what relief he was entitled. The Management took the plea that the workman was terminated vide order dated 10.03.1992 after finalization of the inquiry. The Management took the plea that the workman was terminated vide order dated 10.03.1992 after finalization of the inquiry. In view of the fact that the management did not produce any evidence regarding the fact of domestic enquiry and in view of the statement dated 27.03.1995 of Shri K.M. Gupta, authorized representative, the preliminary issue as to whether the enquiry relied upon by the respondent was in fair and proper manner was decided against the respondent-management and vide the interim award, reinstatement was ordered with full back wages, as noticed above. Thereafter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the management had failed to produce their witness for cross examination, examination-in-chief could not be read into and accordingly held that the termination orders dated 01.04.1991 and 10.03.1992 were not justified. On the issue of back wages, the Labour Court noticed that in the evidence, it has come on record that the workman had worked in Poultry Feed Sale Depot of his father Amar Singh at Dasuya under the name and style of Saini Poultry Feed. The finding was recorded that it was not possible to conclude that the workman was gainfully employed on the shop of his father and merely because he assisted his father for some time on his poultry feed shop, it could not be a ground for refusal of back wages. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in Hari Palace Vs. Labour Court and Another, (1979) 2 ILR (P&H) 243 to conclude that full back wages was a normal rule. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has accordingly submitted that the grant of full back wages was not justified once there was sufficient material before the Labour Court to show that the workman was gainfully employed with his father and relied upon Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Pinjore Vs. The State of Haryana and others to contend that full back wages should not have been granted. 4. Counsel for the respondent/workman, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly the services of the workman had been illegally terminated and there was no proof of any domestic inquiry, as alleged, thus the workman was entitled for full back wages for the period of his unemployment. 5. 4. Counsel for the respondent/workman, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly the services of the workman had been illegally terminated and there was no proof of any domestic inquiry, as alleged, thus the workman was entitled for full back wages for the period of his unemployment. 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that the allegation was that the termination of the petitioner from 01.04.1991 and admittedly the demand notice was served on 26.02.1992. The workman thus, did not raise any issue for a period of 10 months and thus, could not be given any benefit of the back wages for the said period once he had never agitated his cause. This fact has been totally missed by the Labour Court who has, in routine, granted the benefit of back wages from 01.04.1991 to 21.07.1996. 6. Regarding the issue of gainfully being employed, the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar situation in Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration through Secretary (Labour) and Others, AIR 1984 SC 1805 would govern the situation where the workman was being staying with his father-in-law and helping him in his business. It was held not to be gainful employment and accordingly the workman was held entitled for full back wages and consequential benefits. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding his issue read as under:- 21. It was next contended on behalf of the appellant that reinstatement with full back-wages be awarded to him. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the employer countered urging that there is evidence to show that the appellant was gainfully employed since the termination of service and therefore he was not entitled to back wages. In support of this submission Mr. Jain pointed out that the appellant in his cross-examination has admitted that during his forced absence from employment since the date of termination of his service, he was maintaining his family by helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who owns a coal depot, and that he and the members of his family lived with his father-in-law and that he had no alternative source of maintenance. If this is gainful employment, the employer can contend that the dismissed employee in order to keep his body and soul, together had taken to begging and that would as well be a gainful employment. The gross perversity with which the employer had approached this case has left us stunned. If the employer after an utterly unsustainable termination order of service wants to deny back-wages on the ground that the appellant and the members of his family were staying with the father-in-law of the appellant as there was no alternative source of maintenance and during this period appellant was helping his father-in-law Tara Chand who had a coal-depot, it cannot be said that the appellant was gainfully employed. This was the only evidence in support of the submission that during his forced absence from service he was gainfully employed. This cannot be said to be gainful employment so as to reject the claim for backwages. There is no evidence on the record to show that the appellant was gainfully employed during the period of his absence from service. Therefore, the appellant would be entitled to full back-wages and all consequential benefits. 7. The said observations are directly applicable to the facts of the present case that merely because the workman was helping his father on his poultry feed shop, it cannot be concluded that he was gainfully employed. It has also come on record that his father was a retired employee of the Food Corporation, who had opened the shop after his retirement on 30.04.1994 and he was not an income tax assessee. He has also denied that the workman had any connection with the said shop and merely because the workman during his period of forced unemployment had helped his father who was doing small time business, would not entitle the management to claim that the workman was gainfully employed. Thus, no illegality can be found in the award passed by the Labour Court to that extent. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to see whether the Tribunal had acted illegally or improperly and whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue and only an error of law which was apparent on the face could be corrected. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court has to see whether the Tribunal had acted illegally or improperly and whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate on the issue and only an error of law which was apparent on the face could be corrected. This Court could exercise jurisdiction only where there was grave miscarriage of justice and where the Tribunal had acted in excess or as a result of refusal to exercise jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, no such excess of jurisdiction could be pointed out successfully by counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, AIR 2003 SC 3044 held as under:- 38. (3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction - by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice. 8. The judgment in Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Pinjore v. The State of Haryana and Others (supra) is not applicable as it pertains to an issue where the matter was referred back to the Labour Court since the case had been decided in the absence of the counsel for the management who had gone abroad and there was an admission that the employee had been working. Accordingly, keeping in view the fact that the termination of the petitioner was without any justification and the management misused its position as an employer and failed to bring anything on record to show that the termination was justified, it is liable to pay the back wages for the period the petitioner remained out of service. Accordingly, the award dated 13.10.1997 is upheld, however, with the modification that the back wages to the workman will be given only from the period of demand notice dated 26.02.1992 till he was taken back in service on 21.07.1996 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., which had been awarded by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the award dated 13.10.1997 is upheld, however, with the modification that the back wages to the workman will be given only from the period of demand notice dated 26.02.1992 till he was taken back in service on 21.07.1996 alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., which had been awarded by the Labour Court. Accordingly, the civil writ petition No. 302 of 1998 is partly allowed, as stated above whereas CWP No. 12163 of 1995 has been rendered in fructuous since the interim award has merged in the main award which has been modified above.