'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 3:16 PM IST

      J Joymalya: would it not in effect give a retrospective operation to the labour code when the legislature gave operative to the labour code from a posterior date of its passing, that is 2025? in order to interpret or revisit the judgment, use 2020 as interpretative rules, would be not fall in relislating a prospective law as a retrospective law?

    • 17 March 2026 3:14 PM IST

      J Nagarathna: if you say it is not industry, then were will the employees go?

      Nataraj: if state, file a suit under Article 226

    • 17 March 2026 3:12 PM IST

      J Datta: then other departments would be included?

      Nataraj: then relatable comes, whether relatable to sovereign fucntions

    • 17 March 2026 3:12 PM IST

      J Narasimha: even a small canteen run by defence research?

      Nataraj: completely kept out of the new one

    • 17 March 2026 3:11 PM IST

      Nataraj: the intent was to keep the welfare functions out of the purview of the definition. as time changes, we get into welfare legislatives, activities and so many other regulatory mechanism where under the gov never wanted to bring it under the definition of industry

    • 17 March 2026 3:08 PM IST

      Nataraj: 2020 excludes not just sovereign functions but also those relatable to sovereign functions

    • 17 March 2026 3:07 PM IST

      Nataraj: the 2020 code defining industry has retained what has been said in the Bangalore case.

    • 17 March 2026 3:06 PM IST

      Nataraj: 3. the interpretation must also consider the consequences that follows from an overly broad construction and the need for an appropriate balancing competing consideration of both employer and employee

    • 17 March 2026 3:04 PM IST

      2. the concept of sovereign functions ought not be understood in a narrow colonial sense but must be interpreted in the context of constitutionally government democratic state. In the judgments or till such time, how it has been understood, that can't be the approach that has to be understood in the indian context

    • 17 March 2026 3:03 PM IST

      Nataraj: 1. subsequent legislative developments, including the unnotified amendments and the enactments of the industrial relations code 2020 may be as clarifactory in nature, reflecting the intent of the parliament regarding the scope and ambit of the industry definition

    Next Story