'Industry' Definition Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Hearing
A 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear today the reference on the correctness of the definition of “industry” given by then Justice VR Krishna Iyer in the 1978 decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi is hearing the matter.
In the Bangalore Water Supply case, a seven-judge bench had laid down a sweeping interpretation of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that any systematic activity organised by cooperation between employer and employee for the production or distribution of goods and services could fall within the definition of industry, even if the organisation was not engaged in profit making.
The correctness of this decision was doubted in a 2002 appeal. The matter was ultimately referred to a 9-judge bench in 2017, since the Bangalore Water Supply case was rendered by a 9-judge bench.
Follow this page for live updates.
AG: that's how these references came to be ultimately made.
J Datta: J Iyer on behalf of J Bhagwati and J Desai, whether it can be held to be an authoritative precedent- a five judge bench questions the seven judge bench?
J Datta: judgment makes a conclusion, where is the discussion
AG: the court goes back to bangalore water supply and says that J Iyer's and others also take note of it.
J Datta: they say the legislature and executive are helpless, what prevented them to enforce the amended act which compelled the five judges?
AG: there is no material available in the judgment
J Datta: is this a valid reference? Bench in para 24 repeatedly said its not a unanimous definition, how is it relevant? it has to be considered as seven judge irrespective of the dissent
AG: whatever the court may say today, it will certainly cast a shadow on the new code.
J Nagarathna: it has to be activity based, for instance forestry
J Datta: what are the demands of the sector and what difficulties were faced by legislature and executive to enforced the definition which compelled the five judges to make reference, where is that discussion
AG: socio-economic changes happened, opening of markets, questions would still remain if the defintiion of industry had continue to occupying the statute then obviously we need to call that in the context of definition which remains unchanged, does bangalore supply provides guidance
but that is not there anymore
J Nagarathna: few years ago, we were on socalist philosophy and you know what happened in the property Ranganathan's case.
J Nagarathna: We may add one more angle. Bangalore water supply came in 1970s and then we had reforms of 1971, which brought privatisation, globalisation and liberalisation.
Many fuctions state would be doing would be done by private sectors. then what should be the scope of the defintiion of industry, should it still be very expansive or restrictive or balance has to be struck?
we are in 2026, we had many years of LPG, which is so important for a woman also.
AG: there is no shortage of LPG
AG: Pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees and the helplessness of legislature and executive in bringing into force the Amendment Act compel us to make this reference.
AG: 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 long 23 years.
AG: Now that we have reached the 2020 code, couple of questions that arise
1. what is the public purpose will be served to say that the bangalore water supply was not a new law?
if the court were to say its good law then the new code will receive colour from this judgment.