SC’s Nine-Judge Bench to Hear Key Case on ‘Industry’ Definition from Mar 17

NEW DELHI, Mar 14: A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearing arguments 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, the bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and include 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 Constitution bench, including whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer’s opinion in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa judgment correctly determines if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of “industry”.

The bench also asked 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.

The court said another key issue is whether social welfare schemes and activities carried out by government departments or their instrumentalities can be treated as “industrial activities” under Section 2(j) of the Act.

The top court also granted parties additional time to update or submit consolidated written submissions by February 28 and said the hearing will begin on March 17 and conclude on March 18.

Earlier, a seven-judge Constitution bench led by former Chief Justice T. S. Thakur in 2017 recommended that the appeals be placed before a nine-judge bench, citing the “serious and wide-ranging implications” of the issue.

In May 2005, a five-judge bench had referred the matter to a larger bench for interpretation of the term “industry” under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, stating that the larger bench must examine the legal questions in depth.

The five-judge bench had observed that the larger bench should give meaning to the definition clause in the present context, considering decades of experience and the amended definition of “industry” that remained dormant for 23 years.

It also noted that competing demands of employers and employees and the inability of the legislature and executive to enforce the Amendment Act necessitated the reference.

The matter 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 issue.

In the 1996 judgment, a three-judge bench relied on the 1978 seven-judge bench ruling and held that the social forestry department fell within the definition of “industry”. However, in 2001, a two-judge bench took a different view, leading to the matter being referred to a larger bench. (Agencies)