Enumerating the considerations which according to him, detract from the acceptability of the claim that the agreement in this case qualifies for recognition as one referable to the statutory power under Section 49(3) of the Act, Shri Potti said that first, the agreement cannot be deemed to be one entered into by the Board under Section 60(1) because it does not satisfy the essential requirement of having been entered into by the State Government; that secondly, the Board had not done anything with reference to the agreement which could attract Section 60 to it; and, accordingly, though the obligations of the State Government became the obligations of the Board, the agreement itself did not qualify for recognition under Section 60 of the Act; that, thirdly there was no fixity of tenure with reference to and in the context of which alone any immunity from unilateral alteration under Section 49(1) and (2) could be conceived and measured, and that, fourthly the agreement having been anterior to the commencement of the 'Act ' itself, it could not be held to have been entered into for "purposes of the Act" within the meaning of Section 60.