New Delhi, Mar 14: A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India is set to begin hearings on March 17 on the contentious issue of defining the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
According to the apex court’s cause list for March 17, the matter will be heard by a nine-judge bench comprising 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.
On February 16, the court framed the broad issues to be examined by the nine-judge bench.
It asked whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion of Justice V R Krishna Iyer in the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A Rajappa judgment correctly determines whether an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of “industry”.
The bench also questioned whether the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, which never came into force, and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, effective from November 21, 2025, have any legal impact on interpreting the term “industry” under the principal Act.
Another key issue to be examined is whether social welfare activities, government schemes, or enterprises run by government departments and their instrumentalities can be considered “industrial activities” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The top court had given the parties an opportunity to update or submit fresh consolidated written submissions by February 28. The nine-judge bench will begin hearings on March 17 and is expected to conclude them on March 18.
Earlier, in 2017, a seven-judge Constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice T S Thakur had recommended that the appeals be placed before a nine-judge bench, considering the “serious and wide-ranging implications” of the issue.
In May 2005, a five-judge bench of the apex court referred the matter to a larger bench for interpretation of the term “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It noted that the larger bench would need to examine all legal questions in depth and in all dimensions.
The bench had observed that the demands of both employers and employees, along with the delay in implementing the amended definition of “industry” for over two decades, made it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench.
The issue reached the five-judge bench after a three-judge bench found an apparent conflict between two Supreme Court rulings delivered in 1996 and 2001 on the matter.
In its 1996 judgment, a three-judge bench relied on the 1978 seven-judge bench ruling and held that a social forestry department could fall within the definition of “industry”. However, in 2001, a two-judge bench took a different view, prompting the matter to be referred to a five-judge bench and eventually to the nine-judge Constitution bench. (Agencies)
