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

Jaising- J Iyer traditionally represented the textile association of manufactures in the industrial courtroom in Bombay and very often we had occasion to appear against each other

Jaising- my submission is there is no ambiguity in the definition of industry. But assuming is if there is, nobody bothered to clarity what is it until J Datta pointed out that the definition is in two parts.

Jaising- if we get thrown out of ID Act, we go nowhere. I conceive that if I get access by another statute, I have no complaints. There the question is of throwing us out.

Jaising-it says s. 11a gives security of employment and record evidence de novo and depart from punishment imposed by the employer. Doctrine of proportionality can to be introduced

CJI: that is the most imp component, even the tribunal can reduce the dismissal of removal to minor punishment, this power is not even given to the HC in 226

Jaising- there was a tangential challenge to the introduction of S. 11 A into the ID Act, which granted the relief of reinstatement. this court then explained the difference between jurisdiction of a labour court and the jurisdiction of a civil court.

Jaising- it does not create any major substantive rights. it gives me the access to justice in relation to unfair dismissals, in relation to victimisation, in relation to mala fide dismissals. This is what this court has said. And, I will place the judgment before you how the law came to be challenged after S. 11A was introduced- Workman of Firestone v Management (1973)

Jaising- my submission is every democratic society is duty bound to give access to justice in a judicial forum and all that the ID Act is to give me that access.

Jaising- if they are, we have no problem. This court has upheld the constitutional validity of the administrative tribunal's act. Now, every state has an administrative tribunal of its own. We can go for relief from unfair dismissal and protection of 311 goes beyond by ID. So we are not stupid people that if we are covered by A. 311, we will clamour for coverage under ID Act

Jaising- there are certain rules and regulations and constitutional provisions that governs employees. one of the most fundamental articles in the Constitution is Article 311. If we are covering by Article 311 or 309, we would not be asking for us to be covered under the ID Act.

this is a reply to Naphade's argument that no department of the gov should be covered-he must answer are they covered by Article 309 or 311?

Jaising- labour law has two components- one is security of employment, which is the most critical and second is welfare benefits such as gratuity, maternity leave, ESI, provident fund. but primary security of employment comes from the rule of hirer and fire.