S. N. Phukan, J.-The petitioner-company owned oil fields and a refinery at Digboi and is engaging in the business of extraction of crude oil. In the refinery several finished petroleum products are also produced. This company was taken over by the Central Government by an Act of Parliament, namely. Act No. 41 of 1981. This company was transferred by the Central Government regarding its business of exploration of crude and gas to another Govt. company known as Oil India Limited and the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products was transferred to petitioner-company known as Indian Oil Corporation. The Management of Indian Oil Corporation (Assam Oil Division) Digboi is the petitioner here. Tazul Islam Saikia was a workman of the company since 1941. At the time of appointment he declared his year of birth as 192 and accordingly he was due for retirement on and from 1.1.1982 on completion of 58 years of age in accordance with service rules. However, few months before retirement the said workman put in a claim that his year of birth is 1925 which was rejected This workman was working in the laboratory of the refinery of the petitioner company at Digboi. The workman approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Govt. of India raising the dispute regarding his age which was followed by a discussion between the representatives of the petitioner-company and the workman. It is alleged that the workman also approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Assam and thereafter the petitioner received a notice from the said Assistant Labour Commissioner for a conciliation proceiding which took place. According to the petitioner-company a plea was taken before the Assistant Commissioner, Labour, Assam that the industrial dispute could not be taken up by the State of Assam and the appropriate Government for the present purpose was the Central Government. Thereafter, the State of Assam vide notification dated 5.4. 1983 referred the matter for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Dibrugarh. It has been stated that for the present purpose the appropriate Govt. is not the State Government and as such the notification is without jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition. 2. Though Union of India was made a party, no affidavit has been filed. Before us counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of State of Assam and also the workman who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. is not the State Government and as such the notification is without jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition. 2. Though Union of India was made a party, no affidavit has been filed. Before us counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of State of Assam and also the workman who has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. The State of Assam has taken the plea that the State Government is the appropriate Government in respect of the present industrial dispute and not the Central Government under section I (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been stated by the State of Assam that in respect of earlier dispute between the Indian Oil Corporation, Gauhati refinery and the Secretary, Gauhati Refinery Workmen Union and those were referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati for adjudication and the Management of Indian Oil Corporation did not dispute the authority of the State Government. In the counter affidavit filed by the workman, it has been inter alia, stated that the Assistant Lhbour Commissioner (Central), Gauhati vide letter dated 30.iO.1981 (Annexure 3) informed the Union that the Union may approach the Government of Assam in the Labour Department for the present industrial dispute. 3. The only question which needs our determination is who is the appropriate Government for the present industrial dispute in terms of clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. We quote below the relevant portion of the said clause. ''(a) "appropriate Government" means,- (i) in relation to any Industrial Disputes concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company (or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government) or in relation to an Industrial Dispute concerning (a Dock Labour Board established under Section 5-A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), * * * (a) banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil-field) (a Cantonment Board) or a major port, the Central Govt., and (ii) in relation to any other Industrial Dispute, the State Government;" We would however like to state that after the words Dock Labour Board in the said sub-clause (i) of clause (a) other corporations and authorities constituted by the Govt. of India by act of Parliament have been introduced. 4. The first contention of Mr. of India by act of Parliament have been introduced. 4. The first contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner-corporation is that Indian Oil Corporation is an undertaking carried on under the authority of the Central Government and as such in view of sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2, the appropriate Government is the Central Government. In this connection Mr. Bhattacharjee has drawn our attention to the provisions of the Burmah Oil Co. (Acquisition of Shares of Oil India Limited and of the undertaking in India of Assam Or Co. Ltd. and the Burmah Oil Co. (India Trading) Ltd.) Act, 1981. We quote below sections 3, 5 and 9 of the Act. "3. Transfer and vesting of certain shares of Oil India in the Central Government-(1) On the appointed day, fall the shares in the capital of Oil India held by Burmah Oil Company shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government. (2) All the shares which have vested in the Central Govern­ment under sub-section (1) shall, by force of such vesting, be freed and discharged of all trusts liabilities, obligations, mortgages, charges, liens and other encumbrances affecting them. (3) Any dividend payable by Oil India to the shares which have vested in the Central Government under sub-section (1) in respect of any period beginning from the 1st day of January, 1977 : shall be payable to the Central Government. 5. Transfer and vesting in the Central Government of the undertakings in India oi the two companies-On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of each of the two companies in relation to its undertakings in India shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government. 9. 5. Transfer and vesting in the Central Government of the undertakings in India oi the two companies-On the appointed day, the right, title and interest of each of the two companies in relation to its undertakings in India shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to, and vested in, the Central Government. 9. Power of Central Government to direct vesting of the undertakings of specified companies in one or more Government companies -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 5, 6 and 7, the Central Government may, subject to such terms and conditions as it may think fit to impose, direct, by notification that the right, title and interest and the liabilities of each specified company in relation to its undertakings in India which have vested in that Government under section 5 shall, instead of continuing to vest in the Central Govern­ment, vest in one or more Government companies either on the date of the notification or on such earlier or later date (not being a date earlier the appointed day as may be specified in the notification. (2) When the right, title and interest and the liabilities of a specified company in relation to its undertakings in India vest in one or more Government companies under sub-section (1), all the rights and liabilities of the Central Government in relation to such undertakings shall, on and from the date of such vesting, be deemed to have become the rights and liabilities, respectively, of the Government company or companies. (3) The provisions of sections 5, 6and 7 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such Government company or companies as they apply in relation to the Central Govern­ment and for this purpose references therein to the 'Central Government' shall be construed as references to such Govern­ment company or companies. 5. On perusal of the aforesaid sections we find that by virtue of section 5 of the Act, the right, title and interest of each, of the two companies, namely, Burmah Oil Company and Oil India Limited in relation to its undertakings in India vested with the Cen­tral Govt. 5. On perusal of the aforesaid sections we find that by virtue of section 5 of the Act, the right, title and interest of each, of the two companies, namely, Burmah Oil Company and Oil India Limited in relation to its undertakings in India vested with the Cen­tral Govt. Soon after vide notification dated 13th October, 1981 vide Annexure-A to the petition by exercising powers under section 9 of the above Act, the Central Government directed that the right title and interest and liabilities of Assam Oil Company Limited in relation to its undertakings in India which had vested in the Central Government under section 5 of the Act shall vest- a) in so far as they relate to the business of exploration of crude oil and gas, in the Govt. company known as the Oil India Limited; and b) in so far as they relate to the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products in the Gov­ernment company known as the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Thus the present petitioner-company i. e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited became the successor company in respect of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products earlier undertaken by Assam Oil Company Limited before its nationalisation by the above Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee has drawn our attention to various provisions of the Act more particularly section 8. In support of his contention that though in terms of section 9 of the Act, right, title, interest and liabilities of the Assam Oil Company Ltd. were transferred to the present Corporation, the Central Government has power to control the petitioner-company. This submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee need not detain us inasmuch as reading section 9 of the Act along with the above Notification dated 13th October, 1981 it is absolutely clear to us that the petitioner-company became the successor-company of Assam Oil Company Limited after nation­alisation. 6. The words Bunder the authority" of the Central Government in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cane up for consideration before the Apex Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 82 and the Court observed that the words "under the authority of mean pursuant to the authority, such as where an agent or a servant acts under or pursuant to the authority of his principal or master. Applying this test, the Apex Court held that a manufacturing industry carried en by a company registered under the Companies Act, was not being run under the authorities of Central Government even though the entire capital of the company had been contri­buted by. the Central Government and under the Articles of Association the Central Government could exercise control over the company. (See also Praga Tools Corporation vs. C. V. Imanual and others, AIR 1969 SC 1306 ). It is settled law that a company registered under the Companies Act or a public corporation established by an Act of Pa rliamcnt has a separate legal entity. Mr. Bhattacharjee has drawn our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka vs. Workmen represented by the General Secretary, Karnataka Provident Fund Employees Union and another, AIR 1984 SC 1897 , in support of his contention that the petitioner-company is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government. It is true that in the above decision, the Apex Court held that in respect of any industrial dispute concerning Regional Provident Fund Organisation established by the Central Government under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Centra1 Government was the appropriate Government and not the State Government under the provisions of section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in arriving at the above decision, the Court held that business of the provident fund organisation is governmental in character and does not pertain to any industry. This was the only ground on which the above view was taken. The above decision is not relevant for the present purpose as the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products are not governmental in character. 7. Situated thus we find that by the Notification dated 13th October, 1981 the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products including right, title and interest and liability of the Assam Oil Company was transferred after nationalistion to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. 7. Situated thus we find that by the Notification dated 13th October, 1981 the business of production, marketing and distribution of petroleum products including right, title and interest and liability of the Assam Oil Company was transferred after nationalistion to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As Indian Oil Corporation has got separate legal entity and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union (supra) we hold that for the purpose of industrial disputes relating to the petitioner-company appropriate Government under section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not the Central Government as the aforesaid business is not being carried on under the authority of Central Government. 8. The next contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that the refinery situated at Digboi in which the present workman was working in the laboratory section is a mine and as such the Central Govern­ment is the appropriate Government- In this connection Mr. Bhattacharjee has drawn our specific attention to sub-clause (viii) of clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952. The said sub clause runs as follow : - "(viii) all workshops and stores situated within the precincts of a mine and under the same management and used prima­rily for the purposes connected with that mine or a number of mines under the same management ; According to Mr. Bhattacharjee refinery in question is a workshop situated within the precincts of the mine, namely oil field and the petitioner corporation also owns and manages the said oil field. From the above sub clause, it is clear that workshop and stores situated within the precincts of a mine would come under the definition 'mine' if such workshop and stores are used primarily for the purposes connected with that mine. Oil refinery cannot be treated as workshop or stores used primarily for the purposes connected with mine i. e. oil fields. A refinery may be situated near an oil field or elsewhere. It produces different kinds of petroleum products and bye products. Even without refinery an oil field if it is treated as, mine can be operated. In this connection we may refer to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194? wherein an oil-field finds a separate place in addition to mine. It produces different kinds of petroleum products and bye products. Even without refinery an oil field if it is treated as, mine can be operated. In this connection we may refer to sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194? wherein an oil-field finds a separate place in addition to mine. Though we are not expressing any opinion whether an oil field can be treated as mine for the purpose of aforesaid Act we are of the opinion that a refinery cannot be treated as mine in view of sub-clause (viii) of clause (j) of section 2 of the Mines Act, 1952 as urged by Mr. Bhattacharjee. We say so as we find that by Notification dated 18. 8. 67 issued under section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952 the Cen­tral Government decided that the crude oil pipe line (including the Pumping Stations and Power Stations thereon) owned by M/s, Oil India Limited, and running from the oilfield of Nahorkatia to the petroleum refineries at Digboi, Gauhati and Barauni is a mine and refineries were not so declared. Further from the notification dated 21.6. 1984, Annexure-A to the counter filed by the State of Assam, we find that for a period of two years industry engaged in the manufacture of production of mineral oil (crude oil) motor and avation spirit, diesel oil, kerosene oil, fuel oil, etc. was declared as a controlled industry by exercising powers under section 2 (a) (i). From this notification, it is absolutely clear that the Government of India also treated a refinery as a separate entity and not as a mine. Mr. Bhattacharjee has also drawn our attention to the provisions of the Oil Fields (Regulation and Development) Act, 19^8, but we do not find any help from the said Act for arriving at a decision regarding appropriate Government for the purpose of Ind­ustrial Disputes Act, 1947. 9. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has urged that all along all industrial disputes regarding Gauhati refinery used to be referred to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court by the State of Assam. Respondent No. 3 in its affidavit dated 23.6.83 has also annexed a list of such cases which is available at Annexure - 4. Mr. 9. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has urged that all along all industrial disputes regarding Gauhati refinery used to be referred to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court by the State of Assam. Respondent No. 3 in its affidavit dated 23.6.83 has also annexed a list of such cases which is available at Annexure - 4. Mr. Medhi has also drawn our attention to a decision of the Apex Court in I. O. Corporation vs. Its Workmen, AIR 1975 SC 1856 . From that decision we find that industrial dispute concerning workmen of the refinery belonging to the present petitioner situated at Gauhati was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Gauhati by the State of Assam and in that case no plea that the State of Assam was not the appropriate Government was taken. 10. The Union of India has been impleaded as respondent No. 4, but no counter has been filed. By letter dated 30.10.81, Assistant Labour Commissioner of the Central Government, vides Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 informed the respondent No. 3 that the State of Assam is the appropriate Government for the present dispute. 11. For what has been stated above, we hold that for the present industrial dispute, the State of Assam is the appropriate Government under section 2 (a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such the present petition has no merit. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated. No. costs. Smti. M. Sharma, J.-I agree.