SC nine-judge bench to hear key case on definition of ‘industry’ from March 17

A nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India will begin hearings on March 17 on the contentious issue of defining the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a question with major implications for labour relations across government bodies, welfare institutions and private organisations.

The bench will be led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprise Justices B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha, Dipankar Datta, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma, Joymalya Bagchi, Alok Aradhe and Vipul M Pancholi. The Constitution bench is scheduled to hear the matter on March 17–18 , after allowing parties to file updated written submissions by February 28.

At the centre of the dispute is the interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Act and whether the broad legal test evolved in the landmark “Bangalore Water Supply” judgment should continue to govern the definition of industry.

In the 1978 ruling authored by Justice V R Krishna Iyer, the Supreme Court laid down the “triple test” for determining whether an establishment qualifies as an industry: a systematic activity, cooperation between employer and employee, and production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human needs. Notably, the judgment clarified that profit motive is not essential for an activity to be considered an industry.

The expansive interpretation brought several institutions—including universities, hospitals, welfare organisations and government undertakings —within the ambit of labour law protections under the Act.

The nine-judge bench will also examine whether government welfare schemes or activities of public departments can be treated as industrial activities and whether later legislation, including the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982 and the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 , affects the interpretation of the term “industry”.

The reference has a long legal history. In 2017, a seven-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice T S Thakur recommended that the matter be heard by a larger bench due to its “serious and wide-ranging implications” for labour law and employer-employee relations in India.

The forthcoming hearing is expected to provide authoritative clarity on the scope of “industry” , a definition that determines whether workers in numerous sectors are entitled to protections and dispute-resolution mechanisms under Indian labour law.