“There is no shortage of LPG,” Attorney General Venkataramani told the Constitution Bench as it revisited the 1978 industry ruling under the Industrial Disputes Act, with a nine-judge Bench led by CJI Surya Kant hearing submissions on Tuesday.
Forty-eight years after a seven-judge Bench offered a broad reading of “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant began hearings on Tuesday to reassess the validity of the 1978 ruling.
The nine-judge Constitution Bench which includes CJI Surya Kant, Justices B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi is expected to finish hearing the case on Wednesday.
As Attorney General R. Venkataramani began his arguments for the Union of India, Justice Nagarathna observed that India’s 1991 reforms ushered in liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG), shifting many functions once performed by the State to private entities.
In an apparent reference to LPG cylinder supply issues linked to the US–Israel conflict with Iran and Iran’s naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Justice Nagarathna asked,
“Then what should be the scope of the definition of ‘industry’? Should it still be very expansive or restrictive or balance has to be struck? We are in 2026, we had many years of LPG, which is so important for a woman also,”
Venkataramani interjected as the Bench proceeded to hear his submissions,
“There is no shortage of LPG,”
Senior advocates noted that the new Labour Code has already come into force and faces legal challenges.
In its 1978 decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, a seven-judge Bench held that any systematic activity organised through 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 did not operate for profit.
The current nine-judge Bench is reconsidering whether the broad interpretation of “industry” set out in Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer’s 1978 judgment should be revisited.
Earlier, On February 16, the court framed several key questions for the nine-judge Bench to decide. One central issue is whether the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, affect the meaning of “industry” in the principal Act.
The Bench will also determine whether government departments or their instrumentalities, when carrying out social welfare schemes or other public enterprises, can be classified as engaging in “industrial activities” under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
ALSO READ: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance of Deadly LPG Tanker Blast in Jaipur
Previously, a three-judge Bench in 1996, relying on the 1978 seven-judge ruling, had concluded that a social forestry department fell within the term “industry.” A later 2001 Bench reached a different conclusion, prompting referral to a five-judge Bench to resolve the apparent conflict.
In May 2005, that five-judge Constitution Bench sent the question to a larger Bench to settle the scope of “industry” under Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In 2017, a seven-judge Constitution Bench led by then CJI T.S. Thakur directed that the appeals be placed before a nine-judge Bench, citing the matter’s “serious and wide-ranging implications.”
Click Here to Read More Reports on LPG