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. 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 C