Therefore, when an Industrial or a Labour Court comes to the
conclusion that a party complained against committed an unfair
labour practice and if the same is one of dismissal, discharge or
termination of service, service, the relief which the Court can grant
under Section 30(1)(b) is four fold (i) payment of reasonable reasonable
compensation, or reinstatement, or (iii) reinstatement with or without
back wages, reasonable compensation in lieu of back wages. These are
the four alternatives (ii) or (iv) payment of available to an Industrial or
a Labour Court in granting relief to the complainant and when any
one of them is granted it would necessarily mean rejection of the other
three. Normally, when a relief of reinstatement is granted, it is coupled
with the order of back wages whether full, half or otherwise unless
there are compelling circumstances in the case for not granting back
wages. But the order has to specifically mention granting of back
wages when reinstatement is granted otherwise it would necessarily
mean reinstatement without back wages. It would not be correct to say
that an order of reinstatement without back wages does not exist. If an
order of reinstatement is to be construed as an order of reinstatement
with full back wages, there was no necessity for the legislature to
make provisions of four alternatives in granting the relief to a
dismissed or discharged workman. The provisions of Section 30(1)(b)
of the MRTU and PULP Act, thus clearly show that when the relief of
"reinstatement simpliciter" is granted, it means relief only of
