9 Judge Bench of Supreme Court questions bid to dilute 1978 ‘Industry’ ruling

The Supreme Court has resumed hearing a high-stakes constitutional reference examining whether the expansive interpretation of “industry” laid down in the landmark Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajapparemains legally sound. The outcome could significantly reshape labour protections, particularly for employees working in non-traditional and charitable sectors.

The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, is assessing whether the broad test evolved in 1978, bringing even non-profit and welfare activities within the ambit of “industry”, requires reconsideration. Arguments against the ruling stress that not all organised activities, especially those lacking a commercial character, should attract industrial law obligations.

In contrast, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising defended the judgment, emphasising that the now-repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was designed to secure employment stability and counter arbitrary termination practices rooted in common law. The debate also touched upon whether institutions like charities, temples, and even large professional establishments should fall within the definition, given their evolving economic structures.

The Bench indicated that the question of whether the 1978 ruling was unanimous holds little consequence for its precedential value, with judges noting that “all seven judges spoke in one voice,” underscoring its binding force. The Court engaged deeply with the balance between economic activity and worker protection, questioning attempts to exclude charitable or religious institutions outright.

It flagged the practical realities of modern workplaces, where even non-commercial entities employ substantial staff. While no final ruling has been delivered, the Court has confined itself to determining the correctness of the 1978 interpretation, with hearings continuing.