1. DECISION The appellant worker has filed this appeal against the order dated 5-8-1975 passed by the learned Junior Labour Court No. 4, dismissing his application for re-instatement and back- benefits. The appellant's case is that he was permanent workman in the respondent- Mill; on 21-1- 1975. he had left the duty because of severe pain in his tooth after however, filling in the sick leave form. On 24-1-1975, he came to resume work when he was not allowed to do so. After following the grievance procedure as laid down by law he filed the application under section 25-A of I. R. O , in the Junior Labour Court which passed the impugned order. The respondents on the other hand contended that the appellant had left duty without any intimation and that since they had reorganized the winding department in which the appellant was working, they had retrenched the appellant from service strictly according to the principle of first come last out. I have examined the record of the Junior Labour Court and also heard the Representatives of the parties. The record however, shows that the appellant was employed as a cone- winder in winding department which is evident from his appointment letter. In his cross-examination also he admitted that he was working in winding department as cone winder. He further admitted in cross-examination that the winding department was closed, but he was allowed to continue to work. The witness of the respondents also asserted that they had closed the winding department but the appellant was retained to complete the arrears of work in winding section. In the termination letter also the respondent management had given this specific reason that the winding department was closed down due to economic reasons and since there was no possibility of restarting that department the services of the appellant were retrenched. The assertions of the appellant that he was transferred to another department and was doing work of general nature has not been proved by him at all. Neither he in his application has alleged this nor he had suggested any question to that effect to the witness of the respondents in cross-examination. It is an established law that the Management has inherent right to organize any section of its business. I, therefore, find that in order to cut down the expenses the reorganization was carried out by the A respondent for bona fide purposes and there is nothing on record to suggest that the termination of the appellant was mala fide or that he was victimized by the respondents. I, therefore do not find any reason to interfere in the order of Junior Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.