What is ‘industry’? Nine-judge Supreme Court Bench to pronounce verdict on term’s ambit

What is 'industry'? Nine-judge Supreme Court Bench to pronounce verdict on term's ambit U.P., Maharashtra, Punjab sought relook at 1978 judgment's expansive definition of 'industry'.

BusinessNews Info Wire3 min read
Supreme Court orders restoration of AAP Gujarat's Facebook, Instagram accounts

What is 'industry'? Nine-judge Supreme Court Bench to pronounce verdict on term's ambit U.P., Maharashtra, Punjab sought relook at 1978 judgment's expansive definition of 'industry'.

Article outline

  1. What happened
  2. Background
  3. Official response
  4. The details
  5. The bottom line

Key points

  • The reference is centred around an expansive definition given to 'industry' in a 1978 judgment by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, authored by Justice V.R.
  • States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Punjab, represented by Extra Solicitor General K.M.
  • Singh, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued in favour of keeping the reasoning of the 1978 judgment intact.
  • A view of the Supreme Court of India.
  • The judgment had introduced a triple test and included hospitals, educational institutions, and even municipalities as industries.

In practice, a view of the Supreme Court of India. File Photo Credit: The Hindu.

For context, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant is scheduled on Thursday (August 20, 2026) to pronounce its judgment on a reference regarding the exact ambit of the term 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the now-repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Notably, the reference is centred around an expansive definition given to 'industry' in a 1978 judgment by a seven-judge Constitution Bench, authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa case. In practice, the verdict had provided workers employed in a broad set of sectors with a legal recourse, including collective bargaining, against unfair labour practices by employers.

Notably, the 48-year-old verdict had exempted only core sovereign activities – such as the judiciary, law and order, and defence – from the purview of Section 2(j) so as to protect the state's functional autonomy.

For context, the judgment had introduced a triple test and included hospitals, educational institutions, and even municipalities as industries.

States like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Punjab, represented by Extra Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj and senior advocates Shekhar Naphade and Shadan Farasat, respectively, have pressed the top court to revisit the seven-judge Bench's judgment.

Accordingly, a nine-judge Bench framed a number of questions to consider. One question was whether "social welfare activities and schemes or other enterprises" undertaken by administration departments or its instrumentalities could be construed as industrial activity under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Another question considered was whether "state/sovereign activities" would additionally fall within the definition of industry under Section 2(j).

Senior advocates such as Indira Jaising, C.U. Singh, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued in favour of keeping the reasoning of the 1978 judgment intact.

Ms. Jaising submitted that bringing enterprises under the definition of industry provided workmen with a remedy to ventilate their grievances in relation to fair wages, health and safety, occupational safety, and security of employment, and challenge unfair dismissals before a judicial authority.

"A democratic society governed by the rule of law is dutybound to provide a grievance redressal forum of a judicial nature to all its citizens, where their substantive rights can be ventilated, " she remarked, in a submission before the nine-judge Bench.

Notably, the lawyers argued that though the Industrial Relations Code has already replaced the Trade Unions Act, 1926; the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; and the 1947 law, the top court should still authoritatively clarify when an activity can be classified as a sovereign function, or as an industry.

Attorney-General R. Venkataramani submitted that sovereign function cannot be bound to an exhaustive or closed definition. The nature of sovereign functions would change with the evolving role of the state, he remarked.

For now, what is 'industry'? Nine-judge Supreme Court Bench to pronounce verdict on term's remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *