New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that a nine-judge Constitution bench will commence hearing on the contentious issue pertaining to the definition of the word ‘industry’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 from March 17.A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi formulated questions for consideration.
The top court asked parties to update their written submissions or submit additional fresh written submissions on or before February 28, 2026. It clarified that matter will be heard on March 17 and 18.
“In our considered opinion, we have to adjudicate following issues: Whether test laid down in para 140 to 144 by Justice V Krishna Iyer in Bangalore water supply case on whether enterprise falls within definition of Industry lays down correct law?
“Whether the Industrial disputes amendment act 1982 had not seemingly come into force and industry code had any legal impact on the expression ‘industry’,” the bench said.
The top court said it will also consider whether social welfare activities or schemes by government department or instrumentalities can be construed to be industrial activities under the Industrial Disputes Act.
A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by then Chief Justice T S Thakur in 2017 said it was of the opinion that the appeals before it be placed before a bench comprising nine judges keeping in view the “serious and wide-ranging implications” of the issue.
In May 2005, a five-judge bench of the apex court had referred the matter to a larger bench on the interpretation of the definition of word ‘industry’ in section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
It had said the larger bench would have to necessarily go into all legal questions in all dimensions and depth.
“We do not consider it necessary to say anything more and leave it to the larger bench to give such meaning and effect to the definition clause in the present context with the experience of all these years and keeping in view the amended definition of ‘industry’ kept dormant” for many years, the five-judge bench had said in its 2005 verdict.
“Pressing demands of the competing sectors of employers and employees and the helplessness of legislature and executive in bringing into force the Amendment Act compel us to make this reference,” it had said while referring the issue to a larger bench.
First, the matter had reached the five-judge bench after a three-judge bench had found an “apparent conflict” between the two decisions passed by the apex court in 1996 and 2001 on the issue.
Earlier, a three-judge bench, in its 1996 judgement, had relied on a 1978 seven-judge bench verdict and had held that social forestry department was covered by the definition of ‘industry’.
Later, in 2001, a two-judge bench took a different view on the issue after which the matter was referred to a five-judge bench.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: deccanchronicle.com
