Supreme Court nine-judge Constitution bench commences hearing on definition of 'industry'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced hearing on the contentious issue of defining the word "industry" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

A nine-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi is hearing the matter.

Attorney General R Venkataramani is advancing his submissions in the matter.

On February 16, the court had formulated the broad issues to be adjudicated by the nine-judge bench.

"Whether the test laid down in paragraphs 140 to 144 in the opinion rendered by Justice V R Krishna Iyer in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board's case (of 1978) to determine if an undertaking or enterprise falls within the definition of 'industry' lays down correct law? "And whether the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 (which seemingly did not come into force), and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (with effect from November 21, 2025), have any legal impact on the interpretation of the expression 'industry' as contained in the principal Act?" the bench had said.

It had said one of the issues to be adjudicated by the nine-judge bench would be whether social welfare activities and schemes or other enterprises undertaken by the government departments or their instrumentalities can be construed to be "industrial activities" for the purpose of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

A seven-judge Constitution bench headed by then CJI 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 long 23 years," the five-judge bench had said in its 2005 order.

"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.

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 the word "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.