ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, assisted by Mr. P. Choudhury. Mr. S. Borthakur appears for respondent Nos. 5 to 17, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. P. Sengupta appears for the respondent No. 18. 2. The issue to be decided in the present case is whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government for referring the dispute between the parties, in terms of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The petitioner's case in brief is that the petitioner No. 1 is a registered Company under the Companies Act, 1956 having corporate Identity number given in the year 2009 to 2010 and having its corporate Office at Mumbai and Sales Office at Guwahati. The petitioner's Company is in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing of fuel dispensing units. 4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner had taken over and acquired Midco Ltd., which was engaged in a similar business as that of the petitioner. Thereafter, the employees of the erstwhile Midco Ltd. were transferred by the petitioner to its sister concern i.e., M/s. Monalisha EDC (respondent No. 18), which was a manpower supply agency. 5. Being aggrieved by the transfer, some 13 employees of the erstwhile Midco Ltd. submitted a complaint to the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Office of the Regional Labour Commission (Central), Guwahati. Subsequent to the above, the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) issued a letter dated 28.01.2019 to the petitioners, requesting them to offer their comments with respect to the complaint made by the 13 disgruntled employees of the erstwhile Midco Ltd. As no conciliation could be arrived at between the parties, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment issued the impugned Order dated 26.07.2019, whereby it referred the dispute between the parties to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati for adjudication in exercise of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein Reference Case No. 08/2019 has been registered. 6. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the provisions of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it is not the Central Government which is the appropriate authority for deciding the dispute raised by some of its employees, as the Central Government was to have not less than 51% of the paid-up share capital in the petitioner Company. However, the Central Government did not have any share in the petitioner Company. He submits that the State Government is the appropriate and competent authority for determining such disputes, as the petitioner does not carry on its business under the authority of the Central Government. In support of his arguments, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K. Sarkar & Ors., reported in AIR 1952 Calcutta 6 and the Judgment of the Apex Court in Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (1969) 1 SCC 765 . 7. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 17 submits that the respondent Nos. 5 to 17 do not have any grievance, if the dispute is referred for adjudication by the State Government or the Central Government. 8. Mr. K. Gogoi, the learned CGC, on the other hand submits that though the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 will not be filing any affidavit, a reading of Section 2(a)(i) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that a company dealing in oil fields would come under the authority of the Central Government. He submits that as the erstwhile Midco Ltd. was a Contractor with the Indian Oil Company Ltd., which was having its business in oil fields, and as the petitioner Company had taken over Midco Ltd. and doing the work of Midco Ltd., the petitioner Company can be said to be working under the authority of the Central Government, as the employees of Midco Ltd. have been transferred to the respondent No. 18, which is a manpower supply agency, which also supplies manpower to the IOC Ltd. As such, there was no infirmity with the impugned Order dated 26.07.2019. 9. Mr. P. Sengupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 18 submits that he has got no comments to make in this case. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. 9. Mr. P. Sengupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 18 submits that he has got no comments to make in this case. 10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 11. The extract of Section 2(a)(i) and the full Section of 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "1947 Act"), which has been relied upon by the parties is reproduced below:- "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-- (a) " appropriate Government" means-- (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government,"........... ............"or [an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company,] a mine, an oil field,] [a Cantonment Board,] or a [major port, any company in which not less than fifty-one per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by the Central Government, or any corporation, not being a corporation referred to in this clause, established by or under any law made by Parliament, or the Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the Central Government, the Central Government, and." "(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, including the State public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies set up by the principal undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the State Government, the State Government: Provided that in case of a dispute between a contractor and the contract labour employed through the contractor in any industrial establishment where such dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, which has control over such industrial establishment]." 12. While the petitioner's counsel has relied upon the fact that no share capital of the petitioner's Company is held by the Central Government, while the 1947 Act requires that not less than 51% share should be held by the Central Government to come under the authority of the Central Government, Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, on the other hand submits that as the petitioner's Company is doing the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing of fuel dispensing units, under the Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner's Company would come under the authority of the Central Government, as Indian Oil Company was having oil fields and working them. 13. K. Gogoi, learned CGC, on the other hand submits that as the petitioner's Company is doing the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing of fuel dispensing units, under the Indian Oil Corporation, the petitioner's Company would come under the authority of the Central Government, as Indian Oil Company was having oil fields and working them. 13. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Carlsbad Mineral Water Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. P.K. Sarkar & Ors. (Supra) has held at Paragraph No. 12 as follows:- "12. Mr. Sen Gupta has laid great stress on the fact that by the terms of the contract the Government had the right to control the activities of the appellants in many ways. It must be remembered however that by the contract the appellants were given the exclusive right to sell articles on Government property and it was very natural that Government would see to it that what was sold was wholesome and not too expensive and that the persons employed to sell were respectable persons fit to be allowed on railway stations and in railway trains. 'The nature of the contract required considerable control by the Government, but that would not make the business carried on by the appellants as a business of Government carried on by the appellants by authority of Government. It seems to me quite clear that the employers of the workmen in the soda water factory and indeed in the catering department were the appellants and an industrial dispute would be between the workmen and the appellants. If the business of manufacturing and supplying these mineral water was carried on by authority of Government the workmen would be the workmen of Government. But such obviously is not the case. In my judgment it is quite impossible to hold that the Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Company Limited is a business carried on by authority of Government. It is a business not owned by Government, but is on the other hand owned by the Carlsbad Mineral Water Manufacturing Company Limited. It is carried on their behalf and for their benefit and any control of Government only arises because of the terms of the contract which this company has entered into with Government a contract which gives them an exclusive right to sell certain articles on railway property. It is carried on their behalf and for their benefit and any control of Government only arises because of the terms of the contract which this company has entered into with Government a contract which gives them an exclusive right to sell certain articles on railway property. The business or industry is carried on by the appellants and therefore there was an industrial dispute between the appellants who are a limited company in Calcutta and their employees. This could clearly be referred for adjudication by the State Government of West Bengal under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the case of Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra), the Apex Court has held at paragraph No. 3 as follows:- "(3.) Under Section 2 (a) 'appropriate Government' (leaving aside the words which are not relevant for our purposes) means (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning an industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government, the Central Government, and (ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute the State Government. As was done before the High Court, Mr. Nag, appearing for the appellant-union, conceded that he would not contend that the company is an industry carried on by the Central Government but argued that it is an industry carried on under the authority of the Central Government and therefore it is that Government and not the State Government which is the appropriate Government for making a reference under Section 10 of the Act. The first question raised by the appellant-union, therefore, turns solely upon the construction of the words "carried on under the authority of the Central Government." The contention was primarily grounded on the fact that the entire share capital of the company has been contributed by the Central Government, all its shares are held by the President and certain officers of the Central Government presumably its nominees and extensive control is vested in the Central Government.; 14. The fact that the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and servicing of fuel dispensing units does not give any indication that their business involves working the oil fields. The petitioner's business might be relatable to the products of an oil field. However, the same does not mean that they are doing the business of working the oil fields. The petitioner's business might be relatable to the products of an oil field. However, the same does not mean that they are doing the business of working the oil fields. Further, the petitioner Company is a maintenance contractor in respect of fuel dispensing units. Also, the workers of respondent No. 18 are purportedly service engineers in respect of fuel dispensing units. There is nothing to show that the business carried on by the petitioner Company is partly owned by the Central Government. Also, the business of operating oil fields is different from manufacturing, selling and servicing of fuel dispensing units. 15. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the view that the Central Government is not competent to make the present reference, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of the 1947 Act, as the Central Government is not the appropriate Government. Accordingly, the impugned Order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment is hereby set aside. The dispute raised by the private respondents should be sent by the Assistant Labour Commissioner to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Labour Department for referring the dispute to the learned Labour Court within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 16. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.