'Industry' Definition Judgment : Live Updates From Supreme Court 9-Judge Bench

J Narasimha: I have indicated what is the lesson we have to learn, how the problem arose. what should be the definition of a definition. the conclusion- the procedure by which the ratio has been referred for reconsideration is valid to bring about certainty. reference can be answered on merits. such a determination however has become unnecessary with the IR Act 2020. ratio of bangalore water supply is confined to the pending matters.

J Nagarathna: i have raised one more issue-whether intepretation of industry under 2020 would be applied to reconsider the 7 judge bench decision- the interpretation of the word will have bearing on the 2020 Act but not vice versa.

J Nagarathna: social welfare activities of the government can be construed as industrial activities depending on nature of activity, just because gov is doing doesn't mean it can be excluded- nature of activity is relevant and not who does it.

J Nagarathna: significant development in indian economy led to growth of goods and proliferation. privatisation meant that state owned activities were conducted by private sector, and in this context, the protection of workmen under ID Act is significant and therefore, the industry definition has to be broadbased.

1. ID Act has been repealed, so why we should give interpretation

2. IR Act has been enforced in 2020 containing new definition

3. 7 judge has held the field for half a decade

4. point of convergence and divergence don't dilute the ratio of definition of industry by 5 judge

5. any pronoucement will cast shadow on the definition of industory

6. application of ratio can't result in reconsideration of judgement in bangalore water supply

7. interest of employer, workmen, the definiton of industry must be followed

8. bangalore water supply must be taken as acquisence

9 any reconsideration would led to the matters be remanded, this will lead to uncertainity

10. state takes many function which is stricto sense not sovereign

J Nagarathna: in UP v Jai Bir Singh, 5 judges referred for reconsideration the 7 judge bench. i have said that it was not necessary. I have given 10 reasons why there was no reason to answer the reference. I have gone into history, and have analysed each opinion in Bangalore water supply judgment, overruling on Safardung judgment, why expansive definition of industry is necessary.

one can't lose sight of the precarious condition of india during independence, given the situation as it was, the privatisation and liberation was important for india, these were experiments to achieve constitutional goals. in this backdrop the judgment must be viewed.

CJI: we refrain from entertaining into the interpretation of industry under the new 2020 Act. we have not expressed any opinion. the present intepretation is concerned to the 1947 Act only.

J Nagarathna: I begin by saying I have persumed the opinions but I have authored separate why Bangalore water supply reconsideration is not necessary and that the reference of 5 judge was unwarranted.

CJI: we have said reference is maintainable and proceeded to answer the question

1. reference validily made, and can be answered on merits

2. some observations can be susceptible to the reference

we reformulated the triple test, it is not intended to displace the pending matters. the pending matters will be adjudicated as per triple test. present clarification will operate prospectively.

CJI: four of us formulated 4 questions

1. whether triple test is correct

2. whether 2020 code has any impact on the principal act

3. whether welfare act can be construed as industry

4. on sovereign function, can be be included under this

My sister, J Bhuyan, J Datta held that reference not maintainable but 6 of us held it is maintainable.

CJI: during the course of hearing, we said that the matter has become academic. we have given some opinions briefly.

bench assembled.