A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearing on March 17 to decide the disputed meaning of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ruling may impact labour rights, employers’ obligations, and welfare programmes.
A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will begin hearings on March 17 to resolve the disputed meaning of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The cause list for March 17 shows the bench will include Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices B. V. Nagarathna, P. S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi.
Earlier, On February 16 the Court framed the principal questions for the nine-judge Bench to decide,
“Whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion rendered by Justice V R Krishna Iyer in Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board’s case to determine if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of ‘industry’ lays down correct law? And whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1982 , and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 , have any legal impact on the interpretation of the expression ‘industry’ as contained in the principal Act?”
The Court also asked whether government-run social welfare programs, schemes or other activities carried out by departments or their instrumentalities can be considered “industrial activities” for the purposes of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Parties were given leave to update or file consolidated written submissions by February 28. The Bench is scheduled to hear the case on March 17 and conclude on March 18.
A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by then CJI T. S. Thakur, in 2017, had directed that the appeals be placed before a nine-judge Bench because of the “serious and wide-ranging implications” of the question.
The issue was initially referred to a larger Bench by a five-judge Bench in May 2005 to examine the definition in full scope.
That five-judge Bench observed that the larger Bench must address “all legal questions in all dimensions and depth” and noted the legislature and executive had left an amended definition dormant for over two decades, saying,
“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.”
The earlier referral followed a three-judge Bench’s finding of an “apparent conflict” between two Supreme Court decisions from 1996 and 2001.
The 1996 three-judge decision had, relying on a 1978 seven-judge ruling, held that a social forestry department fell within the definition of “industry,” while a two-judge Bench in 2001 reached a different conclusion, prompting the reference to a larger Bench.