'Industry' Definition Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Hearing

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

17 March 2026 10:20 AM IST

  • Industry Definition Reference : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench Hearing
    Listen to this Article

    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.

    Live Updates

    • 17 March 2026 3:33 PM IST

      J Narasimha: rather you leave it and today, whole thing depends upon how we define that expression

      ASG: that is a very challenging task

    • 17 March 2026 3:31 PM IST

      J Narasimha: instead of burdening the court to identity which is a sovereign activity, like the contracts act and many other statute, whenever you think an industry is necessary to be excluded, indicate in the schedule

    • 17 March 2026 3:27 PM IST

      ASG: the sovereign function which has been interpreted in bangalore water supply has been rendered keeping in mind the common law system or the colonial or applying colonial jurisdiction, which may not apply to our system.

    • 17 March 2026 3:25 PM IST

      CJI: if that interpretation was wrong, if that provision has been completely misconstructed by giving such a wide meaning, then we will correct our mistakes.

    • 17 March 2026 3:24 PM IST

      CJI: that does not mean we are helpless. There is a reference before us. We are directly examining the question that whether the interpetation of the original provision itself in bangalore was correct or not.

    • 17 March 2026 3:23 PM IST

      CJI: issue is simple, a provision which never came into force, a provision which never saw light of the day, we can't probably rely upon that. 2020 we can't consciously because it has already been put that it is under challenge.

    • 17 March 2026 3:23 PM IST

      J Bagchi: now, in this interpretation, the danger is that disputes in existence at various stages of adjudication, will now be covered by our interpretation, which will be binding as per Article 141

    • 17 March 2026 3:21 PM IST

      J Bagchi: once we interpret bangalore in the shadow of the 2020 code and we carve out sovereign functions by giving it a wider interpretation, we are importing the restrictions of the 1982 and the 2020 labour code althought the legislature did not introduce them retrospectively

    • 17 March 2026 3:19 PM IST

      ASG: I cautiosly submitted it is not a clarificatory law but in a nature of clarificatory law

      J Bagchi: are you going to pass of a wolf in a sheep clothing?

    • 17 March 2026 3:19 PM IST

      J Bagchi: you used the word clarificatory law, do you really wish to press that argument that the labour code is a clarificatory law or it is a law which redefines labour relationships between the employer and employee where the early vested rights were defined in the 1947 Act

    Next Story