1. By a notification dated the 3rd July, 1964 the following points were referred to the Labour Court, Assam by the State Government for adjudication.
1 (a) Whether the management are justified in retrenching Shri S. Chakravarty ?
(b) If not, is he entitled to re - instatement or any other relief in lieu thereof ?
2(a) Whether the management are justified in refusing to promote Shri T.K. Pujari to technical grade or selection grade ?
(b) If not, what relief is he entitled to."

2. The Labour Court by its award dated the 20th December 1963 held that Management was not justified in retrenching Sri Chakravarty and directed his reinstatement in the post with continuity of service from the date of retirement with full back wages that may be due after making necessary adjustment of the amount paid to him as retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court further directed that on reinstatement Shri Chakravarty for the period of his employment in the Calcutta University will be entitled to the difference of his pay and allowances for that period at Tocklai and those in the Calcutta University. Regarding issue No. 2(a) the Labour Court found that the Management's action in not placing Shri Pujari in the Senior Technical Grade was justified. He, however, held that in the circumstances of the case the Management should have promoted him to the Selection Grade with effect from the 4th April, 1961. It is against this award that the present petition has been filed by the Management under Art.226 of the Constitution.

3. I shall first lake up the award on issue No. 2. The contention of the Management is that the question whether an employee should be given the Selection Grade or not is entirely within the powers of the Management and the Labour Court was not right in holding that the Management was not justified in refusing to promote him to the Selection Grade. The giving of Selection Grade is purely a managerial function and unless it is held that the action of the Management in not promoting Shri Pujari was mala fide, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of such a managerial function by the Management. There appears to be force in this contention. It is urged by the counsel for Shri Pujari that by implication the Labour Court found that the order refusing to promote him to the Selection Grade was not bona fide. We do not think that there is am force in this contention. There is no finding by the Labour Court that the refusal to promote Shri Pujari to the Selection Grade was mala fide. In these circumstances the award in so far as it directed that Shri Pujari should have been promoted to the Selection Grade and awarded him all the benefits is illegal and we set aside that part of the award.

4. Coming to issue No. 1(a) and (b). Shri S. Chakravarty was working as Second Chemist under Dr. N.B. Chanda. He was working in his special research work on flavour of tea. The services of Shri Chakravarty were terminated. The case of the Management is that due to financial difficulty and the fact that the research of the flavour of tea had yielded no result for six years, the Management decided to close this branch and to retrench the employee connected with the said flavour research work. The termination of the services of Shri Chakravarty on the Management's own showing amounts to retrenchment as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act . The Labour Court has held that the reasons given by the Management for closing the flavour research Section and for terminating the services of Shri Chakravarty are not genuine and the retrenchment was not bona fide. The finding of the Labour Court is assailed on