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

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

18 March 2026 10:44 AM IST

  • Industry Definition Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench [Day 2]
    Listen to this Article

    The Supreme Court constitution bench will continue its hearing 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.

    This is the second day of the hearing.

    A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Vipul Pancholi is hearing the matter.

    Follow this page for the live updates. Report of first day's hearing can be read here.

    Live Updates

    • 18 March 2026 2:51 PM IST

      Jaising- I was rather surprised. Traditionally, over the years, we have faced private employers but today who has come before you? All the States. Where are the private employers?

    • 18 March 2026 2:51 PM IST

      Jaising- if we look at triple test from this point of view, you will find that a norm has been laid down to decide what to include in industry and what not to include. Now, much has been said about charity-pause here for a moment-who are the petitioners before you?

    • 18 March 2026 2:51 PM IST

      Jaising-disputes between employer-employee, employee-employee are not unknown. classically they arise when which union is to be recognised.

    • 18 March 2026 2:50 PM IST

      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

    • 18 March 2026 2:50 PM IST

      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.

    • 18 March 2026 2:49 PM IST

      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.

    • 18 March 2026 2:49 PM IST

      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

    • 18 March 2026 2:49 PM IST

      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.

    • 18 March 2026 2:49 PM IST

      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)

    • 18 March 2026 2:49 PM IST

      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.

    Next Story