The Industry Definition In Labour Code is now before the Supreme Court, with the All India Trade Union Congress, Tamil Nadu, arguing that the new definition shuts out charitable and sovereign activities and lets the government notify more exclusions.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on October 28, 2026 heard a writ petition filed by the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), Tamil Nadu, challenging the definition of “industry” under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, one of the four new labour codes. The union sought notice on its plea, and the Chief Justice said the Court would first like to go through the provision. [All India Trade Union Congress, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India]
The matter was taken up by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appeared for the union.
Background: the nine-judge ruling on “industry”
The meaning of “industry” has been one of the most contested questions in Indian labour law. In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), a seven-judge Bench speaking through Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer laid down the “triple test”: any systematic activity, organised by cooperation between employer and employee, for the production or distribution of goods or services meant to satisfy human wants, was an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The wide reading brought hospitals, educational institutions, clubs and many government departments within the reach of industrial law. Doubts over that view led to a reference to a larger Bench, and a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant heard the matter in March 2026.
On August 20, 2026, the Constitution Bench ruled 6:3. The majority held that the reference was validly made and that the triple test will continue to govern cases pending under the repealed 1947 Act, but that the 1978 judgment will not be the basis for interpreting the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. Disputes under the new Code, the majority said, will have to be examined on their own terms. Justices B.V. Nagarathna, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, mainly on whether the reference was maintainable.
The new definition
Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 defines “industry” but carves out several categories, including institutions run by organisations wholly or substantially engaged in charitable, social or philanthropic service, activities of the government relatable to its sovereign functions, and domestic service. It also allows the Central Government to notify further activities that will fall outside the definition. Workers in excluded activities cannot use the Code’s machinery for industrial disputes.
What was argued today
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan told the Court that the Constitution Bench had expressly left this question open, and asked that notice be issued and the matter heard later.
When Chief Justice of India Surya Kant asked whether there was any problem with the definition, counsel replied that there was, and referred to the triple test.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant: “Is there any problem with the definition?”
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan: “Yes.”
The petition comes a little over two months after the Constitution Bench said that disputes under the 2020 Code will have to be examined independently, without relying on the 1978 test.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan submitted that the new definition excludes charitable and sovereign activities and permits the government to notify activities for exclusion, and he pressed again for notice. The Chief Justice responded:
“I would like to go through it.”
Whether notice was issued, and the next date of hearing, had not been made public when this report was filed. The Union Government’s stand on the petition is not yet known.
Case Title: All India Trade Union Congress, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (descriptive; formal cause title and case number not reported)
Bench: Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant
Date of hearing: October 28, 2026
Next date: Not reported
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan for the petitioner union.