'Industry' Definition Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 2]

J Datta: if the inclusive part were to stand independently, the mens would serve no purpose. what is the definition of industrial dispute? The dispute is between employer-employer, employer-workmen, and workmen-workmen.

So if there is a dispute between E-E, it is only the means part which has to be considered and not the inclusive part. There is a basic fallacy in your submission, if we give wider meaning to the means part, the inclusive part becomes redundant.

Hegde: while safdargung held that both parts must coexists and employer must be carrying on a business, trade, undertaking and workmen must be employed. Bangalore held that inclusive second limp independently expanded the definition to cover any calling.

Hegde: in Bangalore, majority accepted that the definition is in two parts but departed from safargung in application.

Hegde: the two are two counter parts of industry and not independent definition. Its like two arms of the clock. The second part does not stand alone in defining industry, describes the activity as workmen within industry established in the first part.

Hegde: In safdarjung, J Hidyatulla examined the Madras gym khana approach which had attempted to two parts separate and disagreed. He said there is no need to see the two as separate parts and definition read as a whole denotes a collective enterprise.

Hegde: Safdarjung is textually and logically sound.

CJI: you are supporting Safdarjung?

Hegde: yes mylords.

Hegde: sadfargung reasoning was more faithful to the statutory text and the bangalore water supply majority erred in over ruling it.

J Nagarathna: see the first para of J Jaswant Singh opinion.

Hegde: reads it, I am not joining issue

J Narasimha: we are sitting in nine Mr Hegde

Hegde: clear view of six may commend itself for your lordships acceptance over what was slightly muddy

J Datta: in the system where we cover, even four can overrule five. In Teen Murthi, which is five judge, we have to see numerical strength of the bench. Therefore, AMU is taken as seven even though 4 was on one side and 3 was one side. Don't take this and say there is muddy and we have to clear it.

J Datta: On 21 Feb, all seven judges spoke in one voice. What is the order recorded by J Chandrachud? He says we are in respectively agreement but we will give judgment later on area of convergence and divergence. That means, there is consensus but in some respects there could be divergence of opinion. Later if two judges that a view that don't agree, that doesn't erode the binding precedent.

CJI: but this has no material bearing

Hegde: a clear unanimous judgment of six judges existed, that was Safdarjung. That line of submissions were much more clear. The line it drew over a slightly hazy line that emerged from Bangalore water supply.