'Industry' Definition Judgment : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench
The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgment on reconsideration of the expansive definition of "industry" given in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).A 9-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi...
The Supreme Court will pronounce its judgment on reconsideration of the expansive definition of "industry" given in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978).
A 9-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices BV Nagarathna, PS Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi will pronounce the verdict. The bench had reserved judgment on March 19.
The Constitution Bench was examining whether the broad interpretation of “industry” adopted in the 1978 judgment authored by Justice VR Krishna Iyer requires reconsideration.
In the Bangalore Water Supply case, a seven-judge bench had laid down a sweeping interpretation of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that any systematic activity organised by 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 was not engaged in profit-making.
Follow this page for live-updates.
Jaising: The potential challenge to the new code has been left open?
CJI: I will clarify in the order.
Order: reference has been adjudicated by the present bench. J Nagarathna has expressed independent opinion, J Datta and J Bhuyan has also declined. J Bagchi has rendered independent opinion has held reference valid but upholding the bangalore ratio valid. majority has held that the reference is valid and we made it abundantly clear that the majority will apply prospectively and the pending matters will be adjudicated as per the triple test definition under the bangalore water supply.
the principles in bangalore water shall be not considered as sweeping anchor for the interpretation of the 2020 Act and its interpretation will be considered independently. the reference is disposed of with these directions.
J Bagchi: on the 1982 Act amendment and the new law, I say that the amendment act was never notified and courts can't direct the governments to notify and therefore it would be wrong to refer to an inert law to redirect the definition of industry. what is the outcome, I am ad idiem that ratio in bangalore would govern the pending cases and the constiutionality of new act will be independently considered.
J Bagchi: to exempt welfare activities on the specious plea of soverieng function would leave a great number of workmen contrary to what the act was meant for.
J Bagchi: the text extended benefically to the workmen, and didn't restrict to activities on commerical. the criticism is misplaced as it carves out just and proper exclusion on domestic activities, small and unorganised clubs etc. on public duties and welfare activities, I have held that the concept of sovereignty is restricted to inalienable duty where states are not answerable to courts but people. viewed from this prespective, mere vesting of duty doesn't clothe it within sovereign immunity.
J Bagchi : reference was validly made, the manner in which the ratio has been referred is conformity with how the reference was made in aligarh muslim and dawoodi bohra. on merit, i disagree with the formulation of triple test. I concur with J Nagarathna and J Datta that triple test propounded in bangalore correctly definitions industry.
J Datta: we order that all pending reference ought to be taken to logical conclusion as per the definition of industry as per the 1947 definition. reference is rejected, bangalore water supply upheld.
J Datta: we have held that bangalore water supply laid down the correct triple test. to be clear, the reference from 5 to 7 was not necessary and disturbs a quietus which held the field for half a century. institutional credibility lies in certainity.
J Datta: we uphold Madam Jaising's objection. there was no question for reference to be made to the 3 judge bench which then referred to 5. we noticed 6 reasons given by the 5 judge bench. we tried to trace how reference can be made and we came across the Keshav Mill judgment. that precedent was available before Jai Bir and we have held that whatever 5 principles were laid down on referral, Jai Bir fails all.
J Datta: I write for J Bhuyan and me. Prior to its repeal, the ID Act has defined industry which has perhaps being the most litigated words. benches have deferred time and again on what should the law cover, and even today the court is engaged what it faced in 1952 and a split verdict is on the admiral. my opinion is on institutional credibility and I have said what is required is an authoritative opinion.
J Narasimha: I have agreed with the CJI's perspective that in future we might have to reinterpret the future definition of industry and that it will not be burdened by the definition of the 1947 Act. if the 9 judge bench modifies the ratio of bangalore water supply, it will have serious affect in excluding some categories. therefore, it is necessary to dispose of the pending matters as per bangalore.