The Supreme Court will begin hearing on March 17 a long-pending dispute over the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The nine-judge bench will examine whether the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply verdict laid down the correct legal test and assess the impact of the 1982 amendment and labour codes.
The court will also consider if government welfare activities qualify as industrial activities, a question with wide implications for employers and employees.
SC Nine-Judge Bench to Hear ‘Industry’ Definition Case from March 17
Constitution bench to revisit Bangalore Water Supply ruling and scope of Industrial Disputes Act
Summary
The Supreme Court on Monday said that a nine-judge Constitution bench will commence hearing on the contentious issue about the definition of the word 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, from March 17.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi formulated questions for consideration.
The top court requested that parties submit their written comments or amend their existing ones by February 28, 2026, at the latest. The matter will be heard on March 17 and 18, it was clarified.
"In our considered opinion, we have to adjudicate the following issues: Whether the test laid down in para 140 to 144 by Justice V Krishna Iyer in the Bangalore water supply case on whether an enterprise falls within the definition of Industry lays down correct law? "Whether the Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 1982 had not seemingly come into force and the industry code had any legal impact on the expression 'industry'," the bench said.
According to the top court, it will also take into account whether government departments' or instrumentalities' social welfare programs can be interpreted as industrial activity under the Industrial Disputes Act.
In 2017, a seven-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice T S Thakur stated that, given the "serious and wide-ranging implications" of the matter, it believed the appeals should be heard by a bench of nine judges.
A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court had referred the case to a bigger bench in May 2005 to define the meaning of the word "industry" as it appears in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It had stated that the bench would inevitably have to examine every legal issue in all of its facets and complexity.
"We do not consider it necessary to say anything more and leave it to the larger bench to give such meaning and effect to the definition clause in the present context, with the experience of all these years and keeping in view the amended definition of 'industry' kept dormant" for many years, the five-judge bench had said in its 2005 verdict.
Advertisement
"Pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees and the helplessness of the legislature and executive in bringing into force the Amendment Act compel us to make this reference," it had said while referring the issue to a larger bench.
After a three-judge bench found an "apparent conflict" between the two rulings the top court had made on the subject in 1996 and 2001, the case first made its way to the five-judge bench.
In its 1996 ruling, a three-judge bench had previously held that the social forestry department was covered by the term "industry," citing a 1978 seven-judge bench decision.
The matter was moved to a five-judge bench in 2001 after a two-judge bench adopted a different stance on the matter.
Published At: